• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

穿透性食管损伤:术前评估的安全时间间隔——多长时间是安全的?

Penetrating esophageal injuries: time interval of safety for preoperative evaluation--how long is safe?

作者信息

Asensio J A, Berne J, Demetriades D, Murray J, Gomez H, Falabella A, Fox A, Velmahos G, Shoemaker W, Berne T V

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, and the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center, 90033-4525, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma. 1997 Aug;43(2):319-24. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199708000-00018.

DOI:10.1097/00005373-199708000-00018
PMID:9291379
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess the experience with penetrating esophageal injuries of an urban Level I trauma center and to attempt to correlate the time to establish a diagnosis with outcome including death, surgical intensive care unit length of stay, and esophageal-related complications.

METHODS

Retrospective study over a 72-month period at a single institution comparing age, admission blood pressure, Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism and anatomic location of injury, and time interval from admission to the operating room (OR) between nonsurvivors and survivors. Patients who survived to reach the operating room were divided into two groups: those who went immediately to the operating room (no preoperative evaluation) and those who underwent diagnostic studies to identify their injuries (preoperative evaluation). Data analysis was done of the same parameters plus average number of associated injuries, complications, and intensive care unit length of stay. Statistical methods used univariate analysis (Fisher's exact test and Student's t test).

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were identified with penetrating esophageal injuries and had the following characteristics: 36 males (84%) and 7 females (16%); mean RTS, 9.39; mean ISS, 28.1; mean time interval to OR, 9.8 hours. Associated injuries occurred with 42 patients (98%). The overall complication rate was 14 of 32 (44%), and the overall mortality was 11 of 43 (26%). Corrected mortality was 22%. Differences were noted between nonsurvivors and survivors in the following parameters: admission blood pressure < 90, 11 of 11 versus 3 of 29 (p < 0.001); RTS, 2.364 versus 11.406 (p < 0.001); ISS, 45 versus 21 (p < 0.001); time interval from admission to OR, 18.3 minutes versus 9.8 hours (p < 0.05). Thirty-six patients survived to reach the operating room, 18 in the no preoperative evaluation group and 17 in the preoperative evaluation group. No statistically significant differences were noted between these two groups in the following parameters: age, RTS, ISS, admission blood pressure, anatomic location of injury, number of associated injuries, or intensive care unit length of stay. Average length of time to the operating room was 16.7 hours in the preoperative evaluation group and 1.4 hours in the no preoperative evaluation group (p < 0.001). Twelve complications (all esophageal-related) occurred among seven patients in the preoperative evaluation group, and seven complications (five esophageal-related) occurred among seven patients in the no preoperative evaluation group. Because of the small sample size, this failed to reach a statistical difference (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal injuries carry a high morbidity and mortality. Although no definite conclusion can be drawn because of the small sample size, there does appear to be an increased morbidity associated with the diagnostic workup and its inherent delay in operative repair of these injuries. For centers practicing selective management of penetrating neck injuries and transmediastinal gunshot wounds, the rapid diagnosis and definitive repair of esophageal injury should be made a high priority.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估一家城市一级创伤中心处理穿透性食管损伤的经验,并试图将确诊时间与包括死亡、外科重症监护病房住院时间以及食管相关并发症在内的预后情况进行关联分析。

方法

在单一机构进行一项为期72个月的回顾性研究,比较非幸存者和幸存者的年龄、入院时血压、修订创伤评分(RTS)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、损伤机制和解剖位置,以及从入院到手术室(OR)的时间间隔。存活至进入手术室的患者分为两组:直接进入手术室的患者(无术前评估)和接受诊断性检查以明确损伤情况的患者(术前评估)。对相同参数以及相关损伤的平均数量、并发症和重症监护病房住院时间进行数据分析。统计方法采用单因素分析(Fisher精确检验和Student t检验)。

结果

共确定43例穿透性食管损伤患者,其特征如下:男性36例(84%),女性7例(16%);平均RTS为9.39;平均ISS为28.1;平均至手术室时间间隔为9.8小时。42例患者(98%)伴有其他损伤。总体并发症发生率为32例中的14例(44%),总体死亡率为43例中的11例(26%)。校正死亡率为22%。在以下参数方面,非幸存者和幸存者之间存在差异:入院时血压<90,11例中的11例与29例中的3例(p<0.001);RTS,2.364与11.406(p<0.001);ISS,45与21(p<0.001);从入院到手术室的时间间隔,18.3分钟与9.8小时(p<0.05)。36例患者存活至进入手术室,其中术前评估组18例,无术前评估组17例。在以下参数方面,这两组之间未发现统计学上的显著差异:年龄、RTS、ISS、入院时血压、损伤的解剖位置、相关损伤的数量或重症监护病房住院时间。术前评估组进入手术室的平均时间为16.7小时,无术前评估组为1.4小时(p<0.001)。术前评估组7例患者出现12例并发症(均与食管相关),无术前评估组7例患者出现7例并发症(5例与食管相关)。由于样本量小,这未达到统计学差异(p<0.05)。

结论

食管损伤具有较高的发病率和死亡率。尽管由于样本量小无法得出明确结论,但诊断检查及其在这些损伤手术修复中固有的延迟似乎确实会增加发病率。对于实行穿透性颈部损伤和经纵隔枪伤选择性管理的中心,应将食管损伤的快速诊断和确定性修复作为高度优先事项。

相似文献

1
Penetrating esophageal injuries: time interval of safety for preoperative evaluation--how long is safe?穿透性食管损伤:术前评估的安全时间间隔——多长时间是安全的?
J Trauma. 1997 Aug;43(2):319-24. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199708000-00018.
2
Penetrating esophageal injuries: multicenter study of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.穿透性食管损伤:美国创伤外科学会多中心研究
J Trauma. 2001 Feb;50(2):289-96. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200102000-00015.
3
Urgent thoracotomy for penetrating chest trauma: analysis of 158 patients of a single center.急诊开胸术治疗穿透性胸部创伤:单中心 158 例分析。
Injury. 2011 Sep;42(9):900-4. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.02.004.
4
Clinical Outcome of Urgent Thoracotomy in Patients with Penetrating and Blunt Chest Trauma: A Retrospective Survey.穿透性和钝性胸部创伤患者紧急开胸手术的临床结果:一项回顾性调查
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Nov;66(8):686-692. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608899. Epub 2017 Dec 12.
5
Treatment of liver injuries at level I and level II centers in a multi-institutional metropolitan trauma system. The Midwest Trauma Society Liver Trauma Study Group.多机构大都市创伤系统中一级和二级中心的肝损伤治疗。中西部创伤协会肝创伤研究小组。
J Trauma. 1997 Jun;42(6):1091-6. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199706000-00018.
6
[Analysis of quality in a first level trauma center in Milan, Italy].[意大利米兰某一级创伤中心的质量分析]
Ann Ital Chir. 2006 Mar-Apr;77(2):97-106.
7
The presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons does not improve management or outcome of critically injured patients.医院内部创伤外科主治医生的存在并不能改善重伤患者的管理或治疗结果。
J Trauma. 2003 Jul;55(1):20-5. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000071621.39088.7B.
8
Management of upper extremity arterial injuries at an urban level I trauma center.城市一级创伤中心上肢动脉损伤的管理
Ann Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;23(1):8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2008.04.012. Epub 2008 Jul 21.
9
A subgroup analysis of penetrating injuries to the pancreas: 777 patients from the National Trauma Data Bank, 2010-2014.胰腺穿透伤的亚组分析:来自国家创伤数据库(2010 - 2014年)的777例患者
J Surg Res. 2018 May;225:131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.01.014. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
10
Time to surgery: Is it truly crucial in initially stable patients with penetrating injury?手术时间:对于初始稳定的穿透性损伤患者来说,它真的至关重要吗?
Injury. 2021 Feb;52(2):195-199. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.043. Epub 2020 Sep 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Hybrid Endovascular and Direct Surgical Approach for Treatment of Penetrating Common Carotid Artery Injury: A Case Report.血管内与直接手术联合治疗穿透性颈总动脉损伤:1例报告
NMC Case Rep J. 2024 Dec 3;11:377-382. doi: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2024-0148. eCollection 2024.
2
Etiology and therapy of pharyngeal perforations.咽穿孔的病因及治疗
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 May;282(5):2549-2555. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-09115-9. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
3
Penetrating carotid artery injury by air rifle: a case report.气枪致穿透性颈动脉损伤 1 例报告。
J Med Case Rep. 2023 Aug 14;17(1):358. doi: 10.1186/s13256-023-04080-z.
4
Emergency esophagectomy: Experience of a high volume esophageal cancer center.急诊食管切除术:高容量食管癌中心的经验
Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Mar-Apr;39(2):371-376. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.2.6613.
5
Non-iatrogenic esophageal trauma: a narrative review.非医源性食管创伤:一篇叙述性综述
Mediastinum. 2022 Sep 25;6:23. doi: 10.21037/med-21-41. eCollection 2022.
6
A narrative review of traumatic mediastinal injuries and their management: the thoracic surgeon perspective.创伤性纵隔损伤及其处理的叙述性综述:胸外科医生视角
Mediastinum. 2021 Dec 25;5:33. doi: 10.21037/med-21-13. eCollection 2021.
7
Primary repair: damage control surgery in esophageal trauma.一期修复:食管创伤的损伤控制性手术。
Colomb Med (Cali). 2021 Jun 30;52(2):e4094806. doi: 10.25100/cm.v52i2.4806. eCollection 2021 Apr-Jun.
8
Anatomy of a Suicide: A Case Report.自杀剖析:一例报告
Am J Case Rep. 2019 Dec 3;20:1801-1804. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.917993.
9
Successful management of suicidal cut throat injury with internal jugular, tracheal and esophageal transection: A case report.成功救治伴有颈内静脉、气管和食管横断的自杀性割喉伤:一例报告
Trauma Case Rep. 2017 Nov 27;13:30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2017.11.005. eCollection 2018 Feb.
10
Primary repair of a delayed presentation thoracic oesophageal gunshot injury: A report of two cases.延迟就诊的胸段食管枪伤的一期修复:两例报告
Trauma Case Rep. 2017 Nov 7;12:45-47. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2017.10.018. eCollection 2017 Dec.