Afifi Ibrahim, Abayazeed Sheraz, El-Menyar Ayman, Abdelrahman Husham, Peralta Ruben, Al-Thani Hassan
Department of surgery, Trauma Surgery section, Hamad General Hospital (HGH), Doha, Qatar.
Department of surgery, HGH, Doha, Qatar.
BMC Surg. 2018 Jun 19;18(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12893-018-0369-4.
We aimed to review liver injury experience in a level 1 trauma center; namely clinical presentation, grading, management approach and clinical outcomes.
It is a retrospective analysis to include all blunt liver injury patients who were admitted at the Level 1 trauma center over a 3-year period. Data were compared and analyzed based on the liver injury grades and management approaches.
Blunt liver injury accounted for 38% of the total blunt abdominal trauma cases with a mean age of 31 ± 13 years. Liver injury grade II (44.7%) was most common followed by grade I (28.8%), grade III (19.1%), grade IV (7.0%) and grade V (0.4%). Blood transfusion was more frequently required in patients with grade IV (p = 0.04). Out of 257 patients with blunt liver trauma, 198 were initially treated conservatively, that was successful in 192 (97%), whereas it failed in 6 (3%) patients due to delayed bleeding from hepatic hematoma, associated splenic rupture and small bowel injury which mandate surgical intervention. Fifty-nine patients (23%) underwent emergent surgery in terms of packing, resection debridement, left lobe hepatectomy and splenectomy. Hepatic complications included biloma, pseudoaneurysm and massive liver necrosis. Subanalysis of data using the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification revealed 19 patients were categorized as a WSES grade IV who needed surgical intervention without having an initial computerized tomography scanning. The overall mortality was 7.8% which was comparable among the conservative and operative group.
In our center, low grade liver injury in young males prevails. NOM is successful even for high graded injuries. All conservatively treated patients with high-grade liver injuries should be closely monitored for signs of failure of the non-operative management. Introducing the new WSES classification makes clear how is important the hemodynamic status of the patients despite the lesion. However, further larger prospective and multicenter studies are needed to support our findings.
我们旨在回顾一家一级创伤中心的肝损伤情况,即临床表现、分级、处理方法及临床结局。
这是一项回顾性分析,纳入了在3年期间入住该一级创伤中心的所有钝性肝损伤患者。基于肝损伤分级和处理方法对数据进行比较和分析。
钝性肝损伤占钝性腹部创伤病例总数的38%,平均年龄为31±13岁。肝损伤Ⅱ级(44.7%)最为常见,其次是Ⅰ级(28.8%)、Ⅲ级(19.1%)、Ⅳ级(7.0%)和Ⅴ级(0.4%)。Ⅳ级患者更常需要输血(p = 0.04)。在257例钝性肝创伤患者中,198例最初接受保守治疗,192例(97%)成功,6例(3%)因肝血肿延迟出血、合并脾破裂和小肠损伤而治疗失败,需进行手术干预。59例(23%)患者接受了紧急手术,包括填塞、切除清创、左半肝切除和脾切除。肝脏并发症包括胆汁瘤、假性动脉瘤和大面积肝坏死。使用世界急诊外科学会(WSES)分类对数据进行亚组分析显示,19例患者被归类为WSESⅣ级,他们需要手术干预,且最初未进行计算机断层扫描。总体死亡率为7.8%,在保守治疗组和手术治疗组中相当。
在我们中心,年轻男性的低级别肝损伤较为普遍。非手术治疗即使对于高级别损伤也很成功。所有接受保守治疗的高级别肝损伤患者都应密切监测非手术治疗失败的迹象。引入新的WSES分类明确了尽管有损伤,但患者的血流动力学状态是多么重要。然而,需要进一步开展更大规模的前瞻性多中心研究来支持我们的发现。