Croce M A, Fabian T C, Menke P G, Waddle-Smith L, Minard G, Kudsk K A, Patton J H, Schurr M J, Pritchard F E
Presley Regional Trauma Center, Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee-Memphis, USA.
Ann Surg. 1995 Jun;221(6):744-53; discussion 753-5. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199506000-00013.
A number of retrospective studies recently have been published concerning nonoperative management of minor liver injuries, with cumulative success rates greater than 95%. However, no prospective analysis that involves a large number of higher grade injuries has been reported. The current study was conducted to evaluate the safety of nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in hemodynamically stable patients regardless of injury severity.
Over a 22-month period, patients with blunt hepatic injury were evaluated prospectively. Unstable patients underwent laparotomies, and stable patients had abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Those with nonhepatic operative indications underwent exploration, and the remainder were managed nonoperatively in the trauma intensive care unit. This group was compared with a hemodynamically matched operated cohort of blunt hepatic trauma patients (control subjects) who had been prospectively analyzed.
One hundred thirty-six patients had blunt hepatic trauma. Twenty-four (18%) underwent emergent exploration. Of the remaining 112 patients, 12 (11%) failed observation and underwent celiotomy--5 were liver-related failures (5%) and 7 were nonliver related (6%). Liver related failure rates for CT grades I through V were 20%, 3%, 3%, 0%, and 12%, respectively, and rates according to hemoperitoneum were 2% for minimal, 6% for moderate, and 7% for large. The remaining 100 patients were successfully treated without operation--30% had minor injuries (grades I-II) and 70% had major (grades III-V) injuries. There were no differences in admission characteristics between nonoperative success or failures, except admission systolic blood pressure (127 vs. 104; p < 0.04). Comparing the nonoperative group to the control group, there were no differences in admission hemodynamics or hospital length of stay, but nonoperative patients had significantly fewer blood transfusions (1.9 vs. 4.0 units; p < 0.02) and fewer abdominal complications (3% vs. 11%; p < 0.04).
Nonoperative management is safe for hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injury, regardless of injury severity. There are fewer abdominal complications and less transfusions when compared with a matched cohort of operated patients. Based on admission characteristics or CT scan, it is not possible to predict failures; therefore, intensive care unit monitoring is necessary.
最近发表了一些关于轻度肝损伤非手术治疗的回顾性研究,累积成功率超过95%。然而,尚未有涉及大量更高级别损伤的前瞻性分析报告。本研究旨在评估血流动力学稳定的钝性肝外伤患者非手术治疗的安全性,无论损伤严重程度如何。
在22个月的时间里,对钝性肝损伤患者进行前瞻性评估。不稳定患者接受剖腹手术,稳定患者进行腹部计算机断层扫描(CT)。有非肝脏手术指征的患者接受探查,其余患者在创伤重症监护病房进行非手术治疗。将该组患者与一组经过前瞻性分析的血流动力学匹配的钝性肝外伤手术队列患者(对照组)进行比较。
136例患者有钝性肝外伤。24例(18%)接受了急诊探查。在其余112例患者中,12例(11%)观察失败并接受了剖腹手术——5例是与肝脏相关的失败(5%),7例是非肝脏相关的(6%)。CT分级I至V级的肝脏相关失败率分别为20%、3%、3%、0%和12%,根据腹腔积血情况,少量腹腔积血的失败率为2%,中等量腹腔积血的为6%,大量腹腔积血的为7%。其余100例患者未经手术成功治愈——30%为轻度损伤(I-II级),70%为重度损伤(III-V级)。非手术成功或失败患者的入院特征除入院收缩压外无差异(127对104;p<0.04)。将非手术组与对照组进行比较,入院血流动力学或住院时间无差异,但非手术患者输血明显较少(1.9对4.0单位;p<0.02),腹部并发症也较少(3%对11%;p<0.04)。
对于血流动力学稳定的钝性肝损伤患者,无论损伤严重程度如何,非手术治疗都是安全的。与匹配的手术患者队列相比,腹部并发症更少,输血也更少。根据入院特征或CT扫描,无法预测失败情况;因此,重症监护病房监测是必要的。