Parihar Mohan Lal, Kumar Atin, Gamanagatti Shivanand, Bhalla Ashu Seith, Mishra Biplab, Kumar Subodh, Jana Manisha, Misra Mahesh C
Department of Radiology, JPNA Trauma centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, 110029 India.
Department of Surgery, JPNA Trauma centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, 110029 India.
Indian J Surg. 2013 Oct;75(5):361-7. doi: 10.1007/s12262-012-0505-9. Epub 2012 May 4.
The objective of our study was to evaluate the role of splenic artery embolization (SAE) in the management of traumatic splenic injuries. From September 2008 to September 2010, a total of 67 patients underwent nonoperative management (NOM) for blunt splenic injuries. Twenty-two patients were excluded from the study because of associated significant other organ injuries. Twenty-five patients underwent SAE followed by NOM (group A) and 20 patients underwent standard NOM (group B). Improvement in clinical and laboratory parameters during hospital stay were compared between two groups using Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test. SAE was always technically feasible. The mean length of the total hospital stay was lower in the group A patients (5.4 vs. 6.6 day, [P = 0.050]). There was significant increase in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in group A patients after SAE, whereas in group B patients there was decrease in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels and only slight increase in SBP (pre- and early posttreatment relative change in hemoglobin [P = 0.002], hematocrit [P = 0.001], and SBP [P = 0.017]). Secondary splenectomy rate was lower in group A (4 % [1/25] vs. 15 % [3/20] [P = 0.309]). No procedure-related complications were encountered during the hospital stay and follow-up. Minor complications of pleural effusion, fever, pain, and insignificant splenic infarct noted in 9 (36 %) patients. SAE is a technically feasible, safe, and effective method in the management of splenic injuries. Use of SAE as an adjunct to NOM of splenic injuries results improvement in hemoglobin, hematocrit levels, and SBP. SAE also reduces secondary splenectomy rate and hospital stay.
我们研究的目的是评估脾动脉栓塞术(SAE)在创伤性脾损伤治疗中的作用。2008年9月至2010年9月,共有67例钝性脾损伤患者接受了非手术治疗(NOM)。22例患者因伴有其他重要器官的严重损伤而被排除在研究之外。25例患者接受了SAE并随后进行NOM(A组),20例患者接受了标准NOM(B组)。采用卡方检验和曼-惠特尼检验比较两组患者住院期间临床和实验室参数的改善情况。SAE在技术上总是可行的。A组患者的总住院时间较短(5.4天对6.6天,[P = 0.050])。SAE后A组患者的血红蛋白、血细胞比容水平和收缩压(SBP)显著升高,而B组患者的血红蛋白和血细胞比容水平下降,SBP仅略有升高(治疗前和治疗后早期血红蛋白的相对变化[P = 0.002],血细胞比容[P = 0.001],SBP[P = 0.017])。A组的二次脾切除率较低(4%[1/25]对15%[3/20][P = 0.309])。住院期间和随访期间未遇到与手术相关的并发症。9例(36%)患者出现了胸腔积液、发热、疼痛和轻微脾梗死等轻微并发症。SAE是一种在技术上可行、安全且有效的脾损伤治疗方法。将SAE用作脾损伤NOM的辅助手段可改善血红蛋白、血细胞比容水平和SBP。SAE还可降低二次脾切除率和缩短住院时间。