Suppr超能文献

对于曾接受过腹部手术的患者,闭合性诊断性腹腔灌洗是否为禁忌?

Is closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage contraindicated in patients with previous abdominal surgery?

作者信息

Moore G P, Alden A W, Rodman G H

机构信息

Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Emergency Medicine and Trauma Center, Indianapolis 46202, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 1997 Apr;4(4):287-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03550.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracies and complication rates of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in trauma patients with and without previous abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of DPL accuracy and complication rate was performed using all ED trauma patients who underwent DPL during 1993 as identified by the trauma registry. Care was provided at a Level-1 trauma center, a 1,100-bed, central-city teaching hospital with an annual ED census of 84,000. Records were reviewed for a history of previous surgery, DPL results, complications, mechanism of injury, and location of abdominal scars. DPL was performed using the Seldinger technique with a standard Arrow Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage Kit using an 8-Fr catheter. Rates for patient groups with and without previous abdominal surgery were compared using Fisher's exact test. A "misclassified" DPL was defined as either a positive DPL with negative laparotomy or a negative DPL with subsequent need for laparotomy. "Complications" were defined as iatrogenic injury during the procedure or inability to obtain return of fluid during the lavage.

RESULTS

A total of 372 DPLs were performed; 42 in patients with previous surgery and 330 in patients without prior surgery. The groups were similar with respect to proportion with blunt trauma (95% vs 97%), positive DPL (19% vs 19%), misclassified rate (2.4% vs 1.8%), and complication rate (2.4% vs 0.9%); no significant difference was found between groups. The previous abdominal surgeries were appendectomy (n = 20), tubal ligation (n = 5), abdominal hysterectomy (n = 4), cholecystectomy (nonlaparoscopic) (n = 4), pyloric stenosis (n = 1), uterine prolapse (n = 1), undescended testis (n = 1), partial gastrectomy (n = 1), and unknown (n = 5). The analysis had a 90% power of detecting a 10% difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The complication rate and accuracy of closed DPL in patients with previous abdominal surgery were similar to those for DPL performed in patients without previous abdominal surgery.

摘要

目的

比较有腹部手术史和无腹部手术史的创伤患者诊断性腹腔灌洗(DPL)的准确性和并发症发生率。

方法

回顾性分析1993年创伤登记处确定的所有在急诊科接受DPL的创伤患者的DPL准确性和并发症发生率。治疗在一级创伤中心进行,该中心是一家拥有1100张床位的市中心教学医院,急诊科年接诊量为84000人次。查阅患者记录,了解既往手术史、DPL结果、并发症、损伤机制和腹部瘢痕位置。使用标准的Arrow诊断性腹腔灌洗套件,采用Seldinger技术,使用8F导管进行DPL。采用Fisher精确检验比较有腹部手术史和无腹部手术史患者组的发生率。“分类错误”的DPL定义为DPL阳性但剖腹手术阴性或DPL阴性但随后需要剖腹手术。“并发症”定义为手术过程中的医源性损伤或灌洗时无法获得液体回流。

结果

共进行了372次DPL;有既往手术史的患者42例,无既往手术史的患者330例。两组在钝性创伤比例(95%对97%)、DPL阳性(19%对19%)、分类错误率(2.4%对1.8%)和并发症发生率(2.4%对0.9%)方面相似;两组间未发现显著差异。既往腹部手术包括阑尾切除术(n = 20)、输卵管结扎术(n = 5)、腹部子宫切除术(n = 4)、胆囊切除术(非腹腔镜)(n = 4)、幽门狭窄(n = 1)、子宫脱垂(n = 1)、隐睾(n = 1)、部分胃切除术(n = 1),以及不明手术史(n = 5)。该分析有90%的把握检测出两组之间10%的差异。

结论

有腹部手术史患者的闭合性DPL并发症发生率和准确性与无腹部手术史患者进行的DPL相似。

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