Suppr超能文献

介入方法在控制巨大上肢肿瘤切除术中失血的应用。

The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing100044, Beijing, 100044, China.

出版信息

BMC Surg. 2024 Nov 2;24(1):343. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02643-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.

METHODS

The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.

RESULTS

We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.

摘要

背景

本回顾性研究旨在确定介入方法控制术中失血量的效果,并调查围手术期并发症。

方法

分析了 2008 年至 2022 年间手术切除的 44 例上肢巨大肿瘤患者的病例。其中 29 例采用介入方法治疗(A 组),15 例未采用介入方法治疗(B 组)。根据介入方法将 A 组进一步分为:C 组(球囊阻断联合经动脉栓塞术,n=11)和 D 组(单纯 TAE,n=18)。在 D 组中,根据 TAE 与手术的时间关系进一步分为 E 组(同一天手术)和 F 组(手术前几天进行 TAE)。比较了两组患者的一般特征、术中失血量、入住 ICU 率和术中使用血管加压药情况。

结果

共收集了 44 例上肢巨大肿瘤患者的临床资料,其中 A 组 29 例,B 组 15 例,C 组 11 例,D 组 18 例,E 组 7 例,F 组 11 例。介入组和非介入组肿瘤体积相似(704.19±812.77cm³比 1224.53±1414.01cm³,P=0.127)。B 组的血浆输血量明显高于 A 组(425.33±476.20ml 比 155.90±269.67ml,P=0.021)。虽然 A 组和 B 组的总失血量无显著差异(467.93±302.08ml 比 1150±1424.15ml,P=0.087),但 A 组大出血(定义为失血量超过 1000ml)发生率较低(6.9%比 46.47%,P=0.004)。C 组未成年人(年龄小于 18 岁)比例明显高于 D 组(27.7%比 0.00%,P=0.045)。C 组 RBC 输血量也明显高于 D 组(458.18±292.22ml 比 164.44±224.03ml,P=0.021)。未观察到明显的围手术期并发症。

结论

介入技术可减少上肢巨大肿瘤患者的失血量和输血需求,且无明显围手术期并发症。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a08b/11531193/1708572dd0b4/12893_2024_2643_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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