Traub A C, Perry J F
J Trauma. 1982 Jun;22(6):496-501. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198206000-00010.
Increased awareness of the problem of overwhelming post-splenectomy sepsis has aroused interest in methods of splenic preservation in patients with abdominal trauma. In the past 6 years, we have treated 272 patients for splenic trauma at our institution, 41 of whom underwent splenic preservation. Mortality rates in those undergoing splenectomy vs. preservation were 23.4% and 4.9%, respectively, severe head injuries constituting cause of death in the latter. Overall morbidity in the two groups was not significantly different (40.7% vs. 39%). Pulmonary complications were predominant in both groups (splenectomy, 27.7%; splenic preservation, 23.1%) with atelectasis more common in the latter. Three subphrenic abscesses occurred in the splenectomy group, none in the repair group. Sepsis was twice as frequent in the splenectomy group (8.7% vs. 4.9%). Mode of injury was slightly more severe in the splenectomy group with these patients sustaining mor chest, spine, associated intra-abdominal, and vascular injuries, thus accounting for the high mortality. Average operative time was not increased by addition of repair (2 hr 54 min vs. 2 hr 33 min). Only on repair required return to the operating room, because of a missed hilar laceration at the original laparotomy, emphasizing the importance of care in technique. Postoperative scans in selected patients showed good functional activity. We conclude that splenic preservation is a technically safe procedure in patients exhibiting hemodynamic stability.
对脾切除术后严重感染问题认识的提高,引发了人们对腹部创伤患者脾保留方法的兴趣。在过去6年中,我们机构共治疗了272例脾外伤患者,其中41例接受了脾保留治疗。脾切除组与脾保留组的死亡率分别为23.4%和4.9%,后者的死亡原因是严重的头部损伤。两组的总体发病率无显著差异(40.7%对39%)。两组肺部并发症均占主导(脾切除组为27.7%;脾保留组为23.1%),肺不张在后者中更为常见。脾切除组发生了3例膈下脓肿,修复组未发生。脾切除组的感染发生率是后者的两倍(8.7%对4.9%)。脾切除组的损伤方式略为严重,这些患者合并更多的胸部、脊柱、腹部及血管损伤,这也是导致高死亡率的原因。增加修复操作并未延长平均手术时间(2小时54分钟对2小时33分钟)。仅1例修复患者因初次剖腹探查时遗漏肝门撕裂伤而需再次手术,这强调了手术技巧的重要性。部分患者术后扫描显示脾功能良好。我们得出结论,对于血流动力学稳定的患者,脾保留是一种技术上安全的手术。