Belli Ahmet Korkut, Özcan Önder, Elibol Funda Dinç, Yazkan Cenk, Dönmez Cem, Acar Ethem, Nazlı Okay
Departmant of General Surgery, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University School of Medicine, Muğla, Turkey.
Department of Radiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University School of Medicine, Muğla, Turkey.
Turk J Surg. 2018 Apr 30;34(2):106-110. doi: 10.5152/turkjsurg.2018.3735. eCollection 2018.
The spleen is the most vulnerable organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Spleen-preserving treatments are non-operative management with or without splenic angioembolization, partial splenectomy, and splenorrhaphy. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of SPTs and to evaluate the usefulness of Injury Severity Score after traumatic splenic injury.
We searched our institution's database between May 2012 and December 2015. Patients' clinicopathological features, surgeon's title, type of treatment, admission and discharge dates, duration of surgery, intensive care unit requirement, and Glasgow Coma Scale were recorded.
The mean age of patients was 33.36±11.58 years. Of the 33 patients, 26 (78.8%) were males, and 7 (21.2%) were females. Thirty (90.9%) had total splenectomy (TS), and 3 (9.1%) had spleen preserving treatment (2 Nonoperative management and 1 partial splenectomy). No fatal hemorrhage developed after nonoperative management. Exitus rates were 5/30 (15.1%) and 0/3 in the total splenectomy and spleen preserving treatment groups, respectively. Of the 18 hemodynamically stable patients, only 2 (11.1%) had spleen preserving treatment. Of the 19 patients with grade I-III splenic injury, only 3 (15.8%) had spleen preserving treatment. For academic and non-academic surgeons, spleen preserving treatment rates were 3/11 (27.3%) and 0/22 (0%), respectively (p<0.05). Injury severity score and mean arterial pressure, number of transfusions, control hematocrit, and GCS had statistically significant relationships.
Spleen preserving treatment proportions were low after traumatic splenic injury. Following trauma, guidelines will not only improve spleen preservation rates but also improve the overall health status of the patients and it will also prevent complications of splenectomy.
脾脏是钝性腹部创伤中最易受损的器官。保脾治疗包括有或无脾血管栓塞术的非手术治疗、部分脾切除术和脾修补术。本研究的目的是确定保脾治疗的比例,并评估创伤性脾损伤后损伤严重程度评分的实用性。
我们检索了2012年5月至2015年12月期间本机构的数据库。记录患者的临床病理特征、外科医生职称、治疗类型、入院和出院日期、手术时长、重症监护病房需求以及格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分。
患者的平均年龄为33.36±11.58岁。33例患者中,26例(78.8%)为男性,7例(21.2%)为女性。30例(90.9%)接受了全脾切除术(TS),3例(9.1%)接受了保脾治疗(2例非手术治疗和1例部分脾切除术)。非手术治疗后未发生致命性出血。全脾切除术组和保脾治疗组的死亡率分别为5/30(15.1%)和0/3。18例血流动力学稳定的患者中,只有2例(11.1%)接受了保脾治疗。19例Ⅰ-Ⅲ级脾损伤患者中,只有3例(15.8%)接受了保脾治疗。对于学术型和非学术型外科医生,保脾治疗率分别为3/11(27.3%)和0/22(0%)(p<0.05)。损伤严重程度评分与平均动脉压、输血量、对照血细胞比容和格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分有统计学显著关系。
创伤性脾损伤后保脾治疗的比例较低。创伤后,指南不仅会提高保脾率,还会改善患者整体健康状况,并且能预防脾切除术后的并发症。