Suppr超能文献

在一家二级医院对110例连续患者采用多学科方案管理脾损伤

Management of Splenic Injuries Utilizing a Multidisciplinary Protocol in 110 Consecutive Patients at a Level II Hospital.

作者信息

Zurita Saavedra Marisol, Pérez Alonso Alejandro, Pérez Cabrera Beatriz, Haro García Ana María, Ruiz García Víctor Manuel, Mirón Pozo Benito, Petrone Patrizio

机构信息

Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Granada, España.

Unidad de Cirugía HBP, Servicio de Cirugía General y Aparato Digestivo, Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Jaén, España; Departamento de Cirugía y sus Especialidades, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Granada, Granada, España.

出版信息

Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2020 Mar;98(3):143-148. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2019.08.007. Epub 2019 Nov 15.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Non-operative treatment (NOM) of splenic trauma is the management of choice in hemodynamically stable patients. The aim of the present study was to assess the failure rate of NOM after implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol for splenic injuries compared to literature results.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed over a 16-year period. Patient data and management of splenic trauma was recorded according to our hospital protocol: demographic data, blood pressure, respiratory rate, Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS), Revised Trauma Score(RTS), Injury Severity Score(ISS), injury grade according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma(AAST), failure of NOM, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were included: 90(81.8%) men, 20(18.2%) women; mean age 37 years; 106(96.5%) cases were blunt and four(3.5%) penetrating by knife. The diagnosis was established by US/CT. AAST classification: 14(13%) grade I; 24(22%) grade II; 34(31%) grade III; 37(34%) grade IV. Emergency laparotomy was performed in 54 patients: 37 due to grade IV injuries, 17 due to hemodynamic instability. NOM was utilized in 56 patients, spleen-preserving surgery in 16, and splenectomy in 38. Ten patients had postoperative complications: seven in the splenectomy group, two in the spleen-preserving surgery group, and one in the NOM group. One patient died. Average hospital stay: 22.8 days- NOM 17.6 days, conservative surgery 29 days, splenectomy 22.4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we continue with a high hospital stay, the literature reports support our results. The implementation of the protocol by consensus contributed to the change towards NOM.

摘要

引言

对于血流动力学稳定的脾外伤患者,非手术治疗(NOM)是首选的治疗方法。本研究的目的是评估在实施多学科脾损伤治疗方案后,NOM的失败率,并与文献结果进行比较。

方法

进行了一项为期16年的回顾性研究。根据我们医院的方案记录患者数据和脾外伤的治疗情况:人口统计学数据、血压、呼吸频率、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)、修订创伤评分(RTS)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、根据美国创伤外科学会(AAST)的损伤分级、NOM失败情况、发病率和死亡率。

结果

共纳入110例患者:男性90例(81.8%),女性20例(18.2%);平均年龄37岁;106例(96.5%)为钝性伤,4例(3.5%)为刀刺伤。通过超声/CT确诊。AAST分级:I级14例(13%);II级24例(22%);III级34例(31%);IV级37例(34%)。54例患者接受了急诊剖腹手术:37例因IV级损伤,17例因血流动力学不稳定。56例患者采用NOM治疗,16例进行了保脾手术,38例进行了脾切除术。10例患者术后出现并发症:脾切除组7例,保脾手术组2例,NOM组1例。1例患者死亡。平均住院时间:22.8天——NOM组17.6天,保守手术组29天,脾切除组22.4天。

结论

尽管我们的住院时间仍然较长,但文献报道支持我们的结果。通过共识实施该方案有助于向NOM的转变。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验