胰腺损伤的诊断和治疗(附32例报告)

本文报告胰腺损伤32例,均经手术治疗。其中胰腺挫伤小网膜腔行腹腔引流术13例,胰腺挫裂伤行清创缝合及引流术10例,胰腺十二指肠联合伤行十二指肠憩室化手术2例,均治愈。7例胰腺横断伤中,行近端胰腺缝合及远端胰切除加脾切除术或远端胰空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术各3例,均治愈;1例行胰腺对端吻合术,术后因胰瘘、胰源性腹膜死亡。     

Pancreatic Trauma Revisited*

Abstract Pancreatic trauma is rare with an incidence between one and two percent in patients with abdominal trauma. Morbidity and mortality, however, are significant with rates approaching 40–45% in some reports. The majority of patients with injuries to the pancreas have associated trauma to other organs which are primarily responsible for the high mortality rate. The continuity of the main pancreatic duct is the most important determinant of outcome after injury to the pancreas. If there is no evidence of ductal injury on fine-cut CT or on ERCP, nonoperative management is chosen. The indications for operative management are as follows: (1) peritonitis on physical examination; (2) hypotension and a positive FAST; and (3) evidence of disruption of the pancreatic duct on fine-cut CT or on ERCP. After exposure and evaluation of the extent of injuries to the pancreas and duodenum, a decision must be made on the procedure. For pancreatic contusions, hematomas, or small lacerations, simple external drainage or pancreatorrhaphy with drainage can be performed. For ductal transection at the neck, body, or tail, the procedure of choice is a distal pancreatectomy or Roux-en-Y distal pancreatojejunostomy. If the patient has suffered a ductal transection at the head of the pancreas without injury to the duodenum, a Roux-en-Y distal pancreatojejunostomy or anterior Roux-en-Y pancreatojejunostomy is the operation of choice. For combined pancreatoduodenal injuries, the options are repair and drainage, diversion via a pyloric exclusion procedure, or pancreatoduodenectomy. Complications of pancreatic injuries include fistulas and intra-abdominal abscesses, and an occasional pancreatic pseudocyst. Key Words *Please see related articles in Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 33;3:221–37     

胰腺断裂合并主胰管损伤的外科治疗分析

目的 探讨胰腺断裂合并主胰管损伤的手术方式选择和疗效.方法 回顾性分析1995年1月～2009年2月经我院手术治疗的21例胰腺断裂伤患者的临床资料.本组男14例,女7例;平均年龄26岁(9～53岁);开放性损伤8例,闭合性损伤13例;按美国创伤外科医师学会的损伤分级:Ⅲ级8例,Ⅳ级8例,Ⅴ级5例.18例损伤后12小时内手术治疗,3例延期手术治疗.其中10例行远侧胰腺空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术;3例行胰头十二指肠切除术;2例行改良十二指肠憩室化手术;3例行胰腺尾部切除术;2例行主胰管吻合内置管引流、胰腺断面缝合;1例行胰腺两侧断端缝扎,后2期手术行远端胰腺空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术.结果 治愈20例,死亡1例(胰头十二指肠切除术后).发生胰瘘并发症3例,经充分引流、药物治疗治愈. 结论 早期手术探查并贯彻损伤控制性外科理念是提高胰腺断裂伤治疗效果的关键,手术方式要根据分级采取个体化方案.     

Experience with totally laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation for pediatric trauma--2 techniques

Purpose

Blunt pancreatic traumatic injury in children, although rare, can be managed with a variety of methods from nonoperative, early operative, or delayed operative strategies. In the appropriate setting, early operative intervention has been associated with shorter hospitalization and decreased morbidity for these patients. Case reports describe laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for isolated pancreatic laceration in children. This article presents the experience and results of the first series of totally laparoscopic, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies for trauma in children.

Methods

Three children aged 8 to 13 years underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation for traumatic pancreatic transection within 72 hours of initial injury. Computed tomography imaging in all patients demonstrated complete pancreatic transection. The details of 2 operative techniques used for totally laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are described. The data for associated injuries, amylase/lipase levels, operative management, postoperative course, length of stay, complications, and follow-up were collected for all patients.

Results

All 3 children aged 8, 10, and 13 years underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy without splenectomy within 72 hours of injury (23, 48, and 72 hours). The mechanism of injury was from a bicycle handle, knee to abdomen, and dirt bike handle, respectively. The length of hospital stay was 6, 15, and 7 days with follow-up of 12, 35, and 34 months. The 2 older children underwent pancreatic transection with an endostapler, and the 8-year-old had the pancreatic remnant oversewn by hand. Use of postoperative total parenteral nutrition continued for 0, 13, and 7 days. Complications included an abdominal wall hematoma and prolonged ileus with mild pancreatitis. There were no pancreatic fistulae or insufficiency. All patients are doing well and are asymptomatic from prior injury and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

Conclusions

In the appropriate pediatric patient with traumatic pancreatic transection, a laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation can be performed safely, with low morbidity and good outcomes. Further studies with larger series of patients with these injuries would be useful.     

严重复杂的胰腺创伤临床处理探讨

目的 总结严重复杂性胰腺损伤的诊治经验.方法 回顾性分析21例的临床资料.其中男14例,女7例;年龄9～53岁,平均26岁;损伤分级:Ⅲ级8例,Ⅳ级8例,V级5例.主要诊断方法有淀粉酶测定、B超、CT、ERCP和MRCP等.均采取手术治疗,10例行远侧胰腺空肠Rouxen-Y吻合术;3例行胰头十二指肠切除术;2例行改良十二指肠憩室化手术;3例行胰腺尾部切除术;2例行胰腺断面缝合、主胰管内置管外引流;1例行胰腺两侧断端缝扎,后二期手术行远端胰腺空肠吻合术.结果 术前诊断明确11例,术中确诊10例.18例损伤后12 h内手术治疗,3例延期手术治疗.治愈20例,病死1例(胰头十二指肠切除术后).发生胰瘘并发症3例,经充分引流、药物治疗治愈.结论 胰腺严重创伤的诊断率仍较低,早期应积极剖腹探查弥补术前诊断的不足,手术方式要根据分级采取个体化方案,贯彻损伤控制性外科理念,不宜盲目扩大手术.     

Management of pancreatic trauma.

Since 1950, 300 patients sustaining pancreatic injuries have been managed. Three-fourths of the injuries were due to penetrating trauma with a 20% mortality and one-fourth due to blunt trauma resulting in an 18% mortality. The pancreatic injury was responsible for death in only 3% of patients. Early onset of shock resulted in 38% mortality whereas only 4% of normotensive patients died. No patient died of an isolated pancreatic injury. Sepsis was the second most common cause of death following hemorrhage. Preoperative serum amylase was elevated more frequently following blunt trauma than penetrating trauma, but did not correlate with injury. There has been a tendency toward more frequent use of distal pancreatectomy for simple penetrating injuries without obvious ductal violation which increases operative time, blood loss and possible intra-abdominal abscess since resection usually requires splenectomy. Patients considered for an 80% distal resection are better managed with a Roux-en-Y limb to the distal pancreas since three patients developed diabetes following an 80% or greater resection. A conservative approach consisting of Penrose and sump drainage is adequate for most injuries.     

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic trauma

Pdasenisvcterinereactt iiacvbe dt rsoaymumminpaatol mis isn a.ju Brryeult as tioitvm heealytsim caeo hmsig pwhlii ctihantoceuiddte aannncdeyof morbidity and complications.The mortality rate canbe as high as12%-20%.1Essential points inmanagement of pancrea…     

胰腺损伤的外科治疗（附48例报告）

目的 探讨胰腺损伤治疗经验。方法 回顾性分析自2002年4月至2014年10月中国医科大学附属第一医院普通外科收治的48例胰腺损伤病人的临床资料,按美国创伤外科学会（AAST）对胰腺损伤分级,结合影像学资料及术中所见将全部病例分级为：Ⅰ级17例,Ⅱ级16例,Ⅲ级9例,Ⅳ级5例,Ⅴ级1例。7例行非手术治疗。41例行手术治疗：胰腺清创冲洗引流术10例;胰腺破裂修补引流术16例;于外院行脾切除术,后入中国医科大学附属第一医院行胰体胰尾切除术1例;胰体尾切除术5例;保留脾脏胰体尾切除术1例;近端断裂胰腺缝闭,远端胰腺-空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术6例;胰十二指肠切除术1例;一期近端胰腺缝闭、远端胰管外引流术,二期胰腺瘘管-空肠或胃吻合术1例。 结果 44例治愈,其中13例出现单种或多种术后并发症。4例因多发创伤死于多器官功能障碍。结论 正确掌握手术时机,合理选择手术方式以及完善的支持治疗是成功治疗胰腺损伤的关键。     

胰腺损伤的诊治体会

１９８６年１月～１９９４年１月我们共收治胰腺损伤２４例，虽有许多辅助诊断手段，但受病情限制胰腺损伤的性质和部位往往要在手术探查时确定。浅表裂伤的８例经清创、缝合和引流治愈；胰体尾部较重裂伤的１０例中有８例行胰体尾部切除治愈。Ｒｏｕｘ－Ｙ胰肠吻合治疗胰头颈部损伤４例；合并十二指肠破裂的２例胰头部损伤用十二指肠憩室化治疗。对较重的胰腺损伤放置空肠造瘘管，从造瘘管滴入要素饮食；发生胰瘘时除加重吸引外，使用６５４－２和５－Ｆｕ以抑制胰液分泌。本组治愈２０例，死亡４例，死亡率为１６．７％。     

Long-term outcome after nonoperative management of complete traumatic pancreatic transection in children

PURPOSE: The treatment of complete pancreatic transection (CPT) from blunt trauma remains controversial. To determine the natural history and long-term outcome of nonoperative management of CPT, we analyzed all such patients over the last 10 years at a level I trauma center. METHODS: Retrospective analysis between 1990 and 1999 was performed on 10 consecutive patients. Complete records were available for 9 patients. Data pertaining to their trauma admission, plus long-term radiologic and clinical outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 6 boys and 3 girls with a median age of 8 years (range, 4 to 16 years) and a median injury severity score (ISS) of 25. All patients displayed CPT on admission computed tomography (CT) scan. Four patients (44%) had associated intraabdominal injuries, but only 2 were significant. All patients were treated nonoperatively. Four patients (44%) had pseudocysts, and 3 required percutaneous drainage. Other complications included a single drainage of subphrenic collection, 1 inadvertent removal of drainage catheter, and 2 cases of line sepsis. The duration of percutaneous drainage was 14 to 60 days. The median length of hospitalization was 24 days (range, 6 to 52 days). After median follow up of 47 months, no patients showed exocrine or endocrine insufficiency. One patient had abdominal pain not related to the pancreatic injury. Follow-up abdominal CT scans in 8 of 9 patients showed complete atrophy of the body and tail in 6 patients and 2 completely normal glands. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic transection is rare and commonly is found in isolation of other major abdominal injuries. No patients required surgery for their pancreatic transection. Pseudocysts can be managed effectively with percutaneous drainage. After a median follow-up of 47 months, no patients had endocrine or exocrine dysfunction. Anatomically, the distal body and tail usually atrophies; however, occasionally, the gland can heal and appear to recanalize. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report to show the effectiveness of nonoperative management after complete pancreatic transection.     

Changing trends in the management of pancreatic trauma

Forty-four patients were operated on for pancreatic trauma during the past three years. Twenty-one patients (48%) were treated by drainage alone, nine (21%) by distal resection, eight (19%) by duodenal diversion, and one (2%) by pancreatoduodenectomy. Active sump drainage was used in 27 patients (71%) and early enteral feeding by needle catheter jejunostomy in 24 (63%) postoperatively. Of the 38 patients who survived the initial operation, two (5%) died postoperatively. Pancreas-related complications occurred in 13 patients (34%). Comparison with earlier findings from our institution reveals (1) more frequent use of active sump drainage, (2) continued use of distal resection for suspected ductal injuries of the body or tail, (3) earlier postoperative nutrition by needle catheter jejunostomy, and (4) increased use of duodenal diversion for concurrent pancreatic and duodenal trauma.     

Pancreatic trauma in children

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic trauma is rare in children, and management strategies are diverse and controversial. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of a consecutive series of children with pancreatic injury seen at a single regional centre over a decade. METHODS: All children under 14 years of age referred with pancreatic injury between January 1995 and June 2004 were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Nine children (six boys) aged 3-13 years sustained pancreatic injuries: one grade I (minor contusion), two grade II (major contusion without duct injury or tissue loss), five grade III (distal transection and duct injury) and one grade IV (proximal transection). Grade I and II injuries were successfully managed without surgery. The five children with grade III injuries were initially treated without operation, but each developed a large symptomatic pseudocyst that failed to resolve with percutaneous drainage. Four underwent a spleen-sparing distal pancreatectomy and one boy with a transected pancreatic neck was treated by Roux-en-Y jejunostomy drainage. A 6-year-old boy who sustained severe pancreatobiliary trauma (grade IV) was treated by Roux-en-Y drainage. All children made a full recovery. CONCLUSION: The management of pancreatic injuries in children should be individualized depending on the site of injury, timing of referral, presence of associated injuries and institutional expertise.     

闭合性胰腺损伤的诊断和治疗：附32例报告

目的：探讨闭合性胰腺损伤的早期诊断和治疗方法。
方法：回顾性分析收治的闭合性胰腺损伤32例的临床资料。
结果：CT诊断符合率为79.3%。非手术治疗4例,其中I级3例,II级1例。 手术治疗28例,I级5例和II级7例行胰周清创外引流术;6例Ⅲ级胰腺损伤中,行远端胰腺切除术和脾切除术4例,行保脾远端胰腺切除术2例;5例Ⅳ级胰腺损伤中,行胰腺空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术4例,行远端胰腺切除术和脾切除术1例;5例Ⅴ级胰腺损伤中,行十二指肠憩室化手术1例,2例胰头严重毁损伤行胰十二指肠切除术,2例由于复合伤情较重,首先应用损伤控制手术,于受伤后48 h再次行彻底性手术。全组死亡3例,死亡原因主要为多器官功能衰竭,余25例中术后发生并发症19例（76.0%）,包括胰瘘、胰腺假性囊肿等,均经治疗而愈。
结论：无明确主胰管损伤、临床情况稳定时,胰腺损伤可先行非手术治疗。手术治疗适于重度闭合性胰腺损伤,根据胰腺损伤的程度选择合理的手术方式可提高治愈率,降低病死率。     

Treatment of pancreatic injuries

Between 1972 and 1983 14 patients with pancreatic injuries have been treated. The diagnosis was often difficult and only made at laparotomy in most patients. Peritoneal lavage and serum amylase levels were of little help in diagnosis. Even at laparotomy, the diagnosis was initially missed in one patient. Six patients had injuries of the pancreatic head and were treated either by Whipple pancreatoduodenectomy (one patient), drainage with gastric and jejunal decompression (two patients) or simple drainage (three patients). Six patients had injuries of the pancreatic body, necessitating distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy in four cases. Two patients with contusion of the pancreatic tail were treated by drainage, followed by development of an infected pancreatic pseudocyst in one case. Six patients died (43%). It is concluded that complete inspection of the pancreas and peripancreatic hematoma is mandatory in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic injuries.     

Lessons learned from isolated blunt major pancreatic injury: Surgical experience in one trauma centre

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to present our surgical experience of isolated blunt major pancreatic injury (IBMPI), and to compare its characteristic outcomes with that of multi-organ injury.Materials and methodsFrom 1994–2015, 31 patients with IBMPI and 54 patients with multi-organ injury, who underwent surgery, were retrospectively studied.ResultsOf the 31 patients with IBMPI, 22 were male and 9 were female. The median age was 30 years (interquartile range, 20–38). Twenty-one patients were classified as the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma–Organ Injury Scale Grade III, and 10 patients as Grade IV. Patients with IBMPI had significantly lower shock-at-triage rates, lower injury severity scores, longer injury-to-surgery time, and shorter length of hospital stay than those with multi-organ injury. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, trauma mechanism, laboratory data, surgical procedures, and complications between the two groups. Eight patients with IBMPI underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, and 5 patients with complete major pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption underwent pancreatectomy eventually. The remaining 3 patients had partial MPD injury and two of them received a pancreatic duct stent for the treatment of existing postoperative pancreatic fistula. Spleen-sacrificing distal pancreatectomy (SSDP) was performed in 13 patient with IBMPI, followed by spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (n = 12), peripancreatic drainage (n = 4), and central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (n = 2). The overall complication rates, related to the SSDP, SPDP, peripancreatic drainage, and central pancreatectomy, were 10/13 (77%), 4/12 (33%), 3/4 (75%), and 2/2 (100%), respectively. Three patients died resulting in a 10% mortality rate, and the other 16 patients developed intra-abdominal complications resulting in a 52% morbidity rate. In the subgroup analysis of the 25 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, SPDP was associated with a shorter injury-to-surgery time than SSDP.ConclusionsPatients with IBMPI have longer injury-to-surgery times, compared to those with multi-organ injury. Of the distal pancreatectomy patients, the time interval from injury to surgery was a significant associated factor in preserving or sacrificing the spleen.     

The management of complex pancreatic injuries

Major injuries of the pancreas are uncommon, but may result in considerable morbidity and mortality because of the magnitude of associated vascular and duodenal injuries or underestimation of the extent of the pancreatic injury. Prognosis is influenced by the cause and complexity of the pancreatic injury, the amount of blood lost, duration of shock, speed of resuscitation and quality and nature of surgical intervention. Early mortality usually results from uncontrolled or massive bleeding due to associated vascular and adjacent organ injuries. Late mortality is a consequence of infection or multiple organ failure. Neglect of major pancreatic duct injury may lead to life-threatening complications including pseudocysts, fistulas, pancreatitis, sepsis and secondary haemorrhage. Careful operative assessment to determine the extent of gland damage and the likelihood of duct injury is usually sufficient to allow planning of further management. This strategy provides a simple approach to the management of pancreatic injuries regardless of the cause. Four situations are defined by the extent and site of injury: (i) minor lacerations, stabs or gunshot wounds of the superior or inferior border of the body or tail of the pancreas (i.e. remote from the main pancreatic duct), without visible duct involvement, are best managed by external drainage; (ii) major lacerations or gunshot or stab wounds in the body or tail with visible duct involvement or transection of more than half the width of the pancreas are treated by distal pancreatectomy; (iii) stab wounds, gunshot wounds and contusions of the head of the pancreas without devitalisation of pancreatic tissue are managed by external drainage, provided that any associated duodenal injury is amenable to simple repair; and (iv) non-reconstructable injuries with disruption of the ampullary-biliary-pancreatic union or major devitalising injuries of the pancreatic head and duodenum in stable patients are best treated by pancreatoduodenectomy. Internal drainage or complex defunctioning procedures are not useful in the emergency management of pancreatic injuries, and can be avoided without increasing morbidity. Unstable patients may require initial damage control before later definitive surgery. Successful treatment of complex injuries of the head of the pancreas depends largely on initial correct assessment and appropriate treatment. The management of these severe proximal pancreatic injuries remains one of the most difficult challenges in abdominal trauma surgery, and optimal results are most likely to be obtained by an experienced multidisciplinary team.     

Management of blunt major pancreatic injury

BACKGROUND: Major duct injury is the principal determinant of outcome for patients with pancreatic trauma, and there are a number of therapeutic choices available specific to the location of the insult. We report a series of blunt major pancreatic injury cases, with a review of the different procedures used and a discussion of the results. METHODS: A total of 48 cases of blunt major pancreatic injury treated during a 10-year period at one trauma center were reviewed retrospectively. Diagnosis and assessment of injury severity were based on imaging studies and proved by surgical findings. Charts were reviewed to establish the mechanism of injury, surgical indications and imaging studies, management strategy, and outcome. RESULTS: Of the 32 grade III patients, 19 underwent distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, 8 had pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen, and 2 received a pancreatic duct stent, with the remaining 3 individuals undergoing nonsurgical treatment, pancreaticojejunostomy, and drainage alone, respectively. The grade III complication rate was 60.6%. Of the 14 grade IV patients, 4 underwent drainage alone because of the severity of the associated injuries, 4 underwent pancreaticojejunostomy, 3 had distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, and 1 underwent distal pancreatectomy. The two remaining patients received a pancreatic duct stent. The grade IV complication rate was 53.8%. The Whipple procedure was performed for two grade V patients; one died subsequently. For all 48 patients, intraabdominal abscess was the most common morbidity (n = 11) followed, in order of prevalence, by major duct stricture (n = 4), pancreatitis (n = 2), pseudocyst (n = 2), pancreatic fistula (n = 1), and biliary fistula (n = 1). All stented cases developed complications, with one dying and three experiencing major duct stricture. CONCLUSION: The complication rate for our cases of blunt major pancreatic injury was high (62.2%), especially when treatment was delayed more than 24 hours; the same result was also noted for cases transferred from other institutions. Distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation had a lower complication rate (22.2%) compared with other procedures and is suggested for grade III and grade IV injuries. Magnetic resonance pancreatography was unreliable early after injury but was effective in the chronic stage. Although pancreatic duct stenting can be used to treat posttraumatic pancreatic fistula and pseudocyst, the major duct stricture in the chronic stage of recovery and the risk of sepsis in the acute stage must be overcome.     

Laparoscopic treatment for peripheral pancreatic duct injury after blunt abdominal trauma: report of a case

We report the successful use of laparoscopy to treat a blunt pancreatic trauma (BPT) in a 33-year-old woman involved in a traffic accident. Computed tomography showed peripancreatic effusion and indicated an injury to the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Urgent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) was performed. The ERP revealed a leakage of contrast medium from the peripheral pancreatic duct. The patient underwent drainage of pancreatic effusion using laparoscopic techniques. The patient had an uneventful course, and no complications have been detected a year after the operation. These results indicate that emergency ERP and laparoscopic drainage are appropriate for patients with peripancreatic effusion due to peripheral pancreatic duct injury. Received: February 1, 2001 / Accepted: January 8, 2002     

Contribution of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in management of complications following distal pancreatic trauma.

Pancreatic trauma is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Treatment of this condition is controversial. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the management of distal pancreatic trauma and its complications, assessing the role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The clinical course and surgical management of 38 patients with distal pancreatic trauma were analyzed in a university hospital in Paris, France. Twenty-five patients were referred after initial treatment elsewhere. As initial treatment, patients underwent external drainage (n = 25), pancreatic resection (n = 6), laparotomy alone (n = 5), and no surgery (n = 2). Nineteen patients with pancreatic duct injury and no pancreatic resection developed fistulae (n = 14) or pseudocysts (n = 5). Only four of these patients recovered without a subsequent pancreatic resection or internal drainage procedure. In the absence of duct injury, patients recovered without the need for pancreatic resection. ERCP was performed in 16 cases and provided critical information on duct status influencing surgical management. We conclude that the presence of pancreatic trauma duct injury is a major determinant of complications and outcome after pancreatic trauma. It is optimally managed by pancreatic resection. ERCP is valuable in providing a definitive diagnosis of duct injury, thereby directing treatment.     

Resection versus drainage in the management of patients with AAST-OIS grade IV blunt pancreatic injury: A single trauma centre experience

IntroductionWe aimed to compare outcomes of pancreatic resection with that of peripancreatic drainage for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma–Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) grade IV blunt pancreatic injury in order to determine the optimal treatment method.Materials and methodsNineteen surgical patients with AAST-OIS grade IV blunt pancreatic injury between 1994 and 2016 were retrospectively studied.ResultsAmong the 19 patients, 14 were men and 5 were women (median age: 33 years). Twelve patients underwent pancreatic resection (spleen-sacrificing distal pancreatectomy, n = 6; spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, n = 3; and central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis, n = 3), and seven underwent peripancreatic drainage. After comparing these two groups, no significant differences were found in terms of gender, shock at triage, laboratory data, injury severity score, associated injury, length of hospital stay, and complication. The only significant difference was that in the drainage group, the duration from injury to surgery was longer than that from injury to resection (median, 48 hours vs. 24 hours; P = 0.036). In the drainage group, three patients required reoperation, and another three required further pancreatic duct stent therapy.ConclusionsIn the surgery of the grade IV blunt pancreatic injury, pancreatic resection is warranted in early, conclusive MPD injury; if surgery is delayed or MPD injury has not been clearly assessed, peripancreatic drainage is an alternative method. However, peripancreatic drainage alone is not adequate and further pancreatic duct stent or reoperation is required. Further studies should be conducted to confirm our conclusions.