Buechter K J, Zeppa R, Gomez G
Department of Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida.
Ann Surg. 1990 Jun;211(6):669-73; discussion 673-5. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199006000-00004.
There is no universally accepted standard classification for liver injuries, and thus accurate comparison of reports on the subject is impossible. Most published reports on liver trauma suggest that both morbidity and mortality have a linear correlation with not only the amount of liver parenchyma injured but also with the magnitude of the surgical intervention. The exceptions are retrohepatic vein injuries, which have a mortality independent of associated parenchymal injury but should be integrated in any classification of liver injury. The classification proposed is based on the segmental anatomy of the liver (as defined by Couinaud): Grade I--Injuries requiring no operative intervention, or any injury that requires operative intervention limited to a segment or less. Grade II--Any injury that requires operative intervention involving two or more segments. Grade III--Any injury with an associated juxta- or retrohepatic vein injury. We reviewed all patients with isolated liver injuries during the past 5 years and prospectively reviewed all patients for the 6-month period from January to June 1988 and applied this classification. Sixty-nine patients had grade I injuries, with one death (1%); thirteen patients had grade II injuries, with six deaths (46%); and 13 patients had grade III injuries with nine deaths (69%). Postoperative morbidity was 7% for grade I, 57% for grade II, and 50% for grade III. This study supports the conclusion that morbidity and mortality from liver injury are directly related to the volume of parenchyma involved, and that segmental anatomy can be applied to define this volume. Mortality from retrohepatic vein injuries is independent of associated parenchymal injury. We believe that this proposed classification will provide a simple, reproducible, and accurate means for reporting and comparing liver injuries.
目前尚无被普遍接受的肝损伤标准分类方法,因此无法对该主题的报告进行准确比较。大多数已发表的关于肝外伤的报告表明,发病率和死亡率不仅与肝实质损伤的程度呈线性相关,还与手术干预的程度相关。例外情况是肝后静脉损伤,其死亡率与相关的实质损伤无关,但应纳入任何肝损伤分类中。所提出的分类基于肝脏的分段解剖结构(如Couinaud所定义):I级——无需手术干预的损伤,或任何需要手术干预且仅限于一个或更少肝段的损伤。II级——任何需要手术干预且涉及两个或更多肝段的损伤。III级——任何伴有肝旁或肝后静脉损伤的损伤。我们回顾了过去5年中所有孤立性肝损伤患者,并对1988年1月至6月这6个月期间的所有患者进行了前瞻性研究,并应用了该分类方法。69例患者为I级损伤,1例死亡(1%);13例患者为II级损伤,6例死亡(46%);13例患者为III级损伤,9例死亡(69%)。I级损伤的术后发病率为7%,II级为57%,III级为50%。本研究支持以下结论:肝损伤的发病率和死亡率与受累实质的体积直接相关,并且分段解剖结构可用于定义该体积。肝后静脉损伤的死亡率与相关的实质损伤无关。我们认为,所提出的分类将为报告和比较肝损伤提供一种简单、可重复且准确的方法。