胃切除术致脾损伤的处理——附15例临床分析

目的 为进一步在胃手术中注意保护健康的脾脏。方法 回顾性分析本院8年来在胃切除术中出现15例医源性脾损伤的临床资料。结果 15例脾损伤中溃疡病胃切除术6例，胃癌根治术8例，贲门癌根治术1例，占同期胃切除术3.3％(15，／457例)。按Pachter脾损伤分级，Ⅰ级2例．Ⅱ级2例．Ⅲ级1例．致伤原因是术人为造成。4例经电凝加医用生物蛋白胶止血，5例行大网膜逢合、明胶海绵压迫止血，3例行逢合修补术．3例全脾切除。全组均痊愈出院，3例脾切除患中2例术后并发感染。结论 胃手术导致脾脏损伤是一种医源性的睥损伤，这种损伤是可以预防或降到最低限度的，及时发现正确处理十分重要。     

胃癌根治术中医源性脾损伤的临床分析

目的探讨胃癌根治术中发生脾损伤的原因和处理方法。方法回顾性分析1990年1月～2007年12月胃癌根治术中发生医源性脾损伤病例的资料。结果728例胃癌切除术中发生脾损伤42例，Ⅰ级31例，Ⅱ级8例，Ⅲ级3例。37例保脾成功，其中用游离大网膜或明胶海绵填塞缝合25例。全部治愈出院。结论胃癌手术尤其是经腹近侧胃切除和全胃切除术易发生脾损伤。胃癌切除术中发生的脾损伤多为Ⅰ、Ⅱ级损伤，用游离的大网膜或明胶海绵填塞缝合是简单有效的处理方法。     

胃切除术致脾损伤的处理--附15例临床分析

目的　为进一步在胃手术中注意保护健康的脾脏。方法　回顾性分析本院８ 年来在胃切除术中出现１５ 例医源性脾损伤的临床资料。结果　１５ 例脾损伤中溃疡病胃切除术６ 例，胃癌根治术８ 例，贲门癌根治术１ 例，占同期胃切除术３－３％ （１５／４５７ 例） 。按Ｐａｃｈｔｅｒ 脾损伤分级，Ⅰ级１２ 例，Ⅱ级２ 例，Ⅲ级１ 例。致伤原因是术者人为造成。４ 例经电凝加医用生物蛋白胶止血，５ 例行大网膜逢合、明胶海绵压迫止血，３ 例行逢合修补术，３ 例全脾切除。全组均痊愈出院，３ 例脾切除患者中２ 例术后并发感染。结论　胃手术导致脾脏损伤是一种医源性的脾损伤。这种损伤是可以预防或降到最低限度的，及时发现正确处理十分重要。     

胃癌根治术中脾损伤的原因分析和防治

胃癌根治术中脾损伤是常见并发症,胃癌手术尤其是经腹近侧胃切除和全胃切除术易发生脾损伤,术中脾损伤的发现及及时处理对于手术成功相当重要,应引起术者的重视,以免引起严重后果。我院1988年6月～2008年9月共行胃癌根治术362例,其中发生脾损伤12例,发生几率为3．31％。现总结胃癌根治术中脾损伤的原因,并对其防治加以讨论。     

医源性脾损伤

医源性脾损伤李方跃，王成友（安徽医科大学第一附属医院合肥２３００２２）医源性脾损伤系由于手术操作或医疗器械使用不当所造成的。我院１９９０．１～１９９５．１０发生９例，现总结分析如下。１临床资料本组共９例，发生于胃切除手术（包括胃大部切除、全胃切除及选...     

ҽԴ��Ƣ���˵ķ������������

目的探讨医源性脾损伤的发生原因和防治措施。方法回顾性分析1992～2002年上海第二医科大学附属宝钢医院26例与手术操作相关的脾损伤病例。结果全组病例均经手术证实，医源性脾损伤发生于结肠手术中占31％(8／26)、胃手术中占27％(7／26)、胰腺手术中占15％(4／26)，其他手术中占27％(7／26)。本组均经手术治愈，其中行单纯脾切除6例，脾切除加自体脾移植2例，脾修补5例，13例应用了局部止血措施。结论良好的麻醉和细致的手术操作可以有效预防医源性脾损伤的发生，而根据伤情合理选择术式是治疗医源性脾损伤的关键。     

胃癌D2根治术联合脾切除与否对疗效影响的比较研究

目的比较胃癌D2根治术中联合脾切除与否对胃上部、上中部及全胃癌手术疗效的差异。方法1989年1月至1994年12月问,对112例肿瘤位于胃上部、上中部或全胃的患者施行了D2根治术．其中61例接受保脾改良淋巴结清除术（保脾组）,51例接受D2根治术联合脾切除（切脾组）。回顾性分析两组患者在临床病理特征、5年生存率、术后并发症发生率和术后住院天数等方面的差异。结果两组胃癌患者在性别、年龄、肿瘤大小、肿瘤T分期和N分期及TNM分期间差异均无统计学意义（均P〉0．05）。保脾组和切脾组胃癌患者的术后5年总体生存率分别为41．0％和39．2％（P〉0．05）。保脾组Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期胃癌患者的5年生存率分别为100．0％、66．7％、27．8％和17-4％．切脾组分别为100．0％、70．0％、26．7％和5．6％,两组各分期患者术后5年生存率差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）：保脾组和切脾组胃癌患者的术后并发症发生率分别为11．5％和27．5％,两组间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;切脾组胃癌患者的术后平均住院天数（27．3d）长于保脾组（20．3d）（P=0．057）。结论对于胃上部、上中部或全胃癌,保脾改良淋巴结清除的D2全胃根治术不仅能取得与联合脾切除的耽全胃根治术相当的疗效,而且可以减少术后并发症的发生率。     

胃癌根治术保留胰脾功能清除脾门和脾动脉干淋巴结的临床意义

目的 探讨胃癌根治术保留胰脾功能清除脾门和脾动脉干淋巴结（即No10、No11)的合理性和可行性。方法 分析439例手术切除的胃贲门、体部和全胃癌侵入胰脾情况;对54例胃癌患者在术中从贲门和体部浆膜下注入亚甲兰观察胃的淋巴流向;63例胃癌采用保留胰脾功能性清除No10、No11淋巴结方法,与同期保胰法和胰脾切除法比较,分析No10、No11淋巴结转移率,观察术后并发症发生率和生存率。结果 439例胃贲门、体部和全胃癌侵入胰脾机会不多,分别为5．7％（25／439）和2．3％（10／439）;54例胃的美兰淋巴引流不进入脾脏和胰腺内。保留胰腺法、保胰法和胰脾切除法3组No10、11淋巴结转移率分别为17．5％（11／63）,19．1％（12／63）;20．8％（45／216）,25％（54／216）;20％（6／30）,23％（7／30）,差异无显著意义。63例保留胰脾法术后并发症发生率和病死率均较保留胰法和胰脾联合切除法低,而生存期较高,5、10年生存率分别为57．5％、52％,57．4％、47．4％和37．3％、30％。Ⅱ、Ⅲa期患者保留胰脾手术的5、10年生存率明显改善。结论 保胰脾法是一个安全、切实可行的保留脏器功能的胃癌手术,术后并发症低、生存率高。尤对Ⅱ、Ⅲa期患者应行保留胰脾手术。     

外伤性脾破裂保脾术后预防再出血的体会

自１９８９年以来，我院对８１例外伤性脾破裂实施了脾部分切除术，术后无１例出现再出血。现总结如下。１　临床资料本组８１例，男５８例，女２３例。年龄７～６３岁，平均３２－５岁。致伤原因为：车祸４１例，坠跌伤１７例，撞击伤１８例，刺伤１例，挤压伤２例，医源性损伤２例（１例为胃癌根治术中，另１例为胃大部切除术中，均误伤脾下极）。除２例医源性损伤外，入院时距受伤时间为１０分钟至２０日。入院时伴休克者３５例。７８例腹腔穿刺为阳性。Ｂ超提示脾破裂者６８例（８３－９％），腹内合并其它脏器损伤为：肝、胃同时破裂１…     

胃癌根治术中医源性脾脏损伤10例临床分析

目的 探讨胃癌根治术中医源性脾脏损伤的原因、预防措施及处理方法.方法 回顾性分析我院普通外科2009年1月至2012年12月262例胃癌根治术中发生的10例脾脏损伤患者的临床资料.结果 胃癌根治术中脾损伤的发生率为3.8％ （10/262）,本组10例中,脾下极脏面撕裂4例,脾上极脏面撕裂3例,脾体部裂伤2例,脾门撕裂1例;按2000年中华医学会外科分会脾脏外科学组“脾脏损伤程度分级”标准,Ⅰ级损伤7例,Ⅱ级损伤2例,Ⅲ级损伤1例.其中,7例应用局部止血措施,2例行脾修补术,1例行脾切除术.全组未出现与脾损伤相关的并发症,均治愈出院.结论 普外科医师在手术之前应充分评估患者情况,包括患者年龄、病变部位等,制定适宜的手术方案;手术过程中要提高防范意识,尤其是胃底部肿瘤切除或全胃切除时要注意保护脾胃韧带;另外,开腹探查后就切断脾门到脾下极间附着的纤维束带为可借鉴的手术技巧.对于裂口小而浅的Ⅰ级脾损伤压迫止血后可不缝补,Ⅱ级脾脏损伤可行脾修补术或部分切除术,对于严重破裂而无法保留脾脏者,可行全脾切除.     

Splenic function following experimental dearterialization injury in the suckling rat

An experimental splenic dearterilization injury was created in 1-wk-old rats to study the effect of vascular trauma on splenic function. Splenic weight significantly decreased 1 wk following injury but returned to control values within a month. Total splenic nuclear activity diminished initially but increased to above control values 1 mo after injury, and finally returned to normal at 2 mo. Survival rate after an intraperitoneal challenge with pneumococcus in groups 1 wk following total splenectomy and partial dearterlization was not significantly different than controls. This study confirmed the clinical impression that vascular injury to the spleen causes only a transient impariment of splenic size and function and provides further incentive to perform splenorrhaphy following splenic trauma.     

自发性脾破裂18例报告

目的总结自发性脾破裂的诊治经验。方法对1987年7月～2004年12月收治的18例自发性脾破裂患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果全组18例中,充血性脾肿大4例(3例肝炎后肝硬化,1例血吸虫性肝硬化),原发性脾恶性淋巴瘤2例,结肠癌及胰尾癌浸润脾脏各1例,慢性粒细胞性白血病1例,脾海绵状血管瘤1例,脾脏囊肿2例,不明原因脾肿大4例,正常脾脏2例。急诊脾切除术14例,其中联合胰尾癌切除1例,联合结肠癌切除、结肠造瘘术1例。非手术治疗4例,其中1例因发热持续不退,1例因脾周血肿增大、疼痛加重而中转脾切除术;脾包膜下出血2例经非手术治愈。本组治愈16例,死亡2例。结论病理性脾脏是自发性脾破裂的主要原因。脾切除术是治疗自发性脾破裂的主要手段。     

脾损伤的脾保留手术——10年经验总结

目的：本文旨在阐明脾损伤的外科处理原则，结合我们10年来保脾手术的经验探讨脾保留手术的适应证、手术技术及疗效。方法：回顾性分析1989年5月至1999年5月间收治的166例脾损伤行保留性脾手术病例。结果：本组病例无死亡，保脾成功108例（65．1％）。58例（34．9％）被迫行脾切除，40例（56％）同时行脾组织自体移植。所有脾保留性手术均无并发症发生。109例术后平均随访13．5个月，脾功能良好，无感染并发症。结论：保留性脾手术在选择适当的病例中可安全施行。成功实施取决于三因素：格守脾损伤处理的一般原则，依脾损伤类型及病人状况选择恰当术式，掌握保脾术式的技术要点。     

Iatrogenic splenic injury

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic injury to the spleen is a recognised complication of abdominal surgery but the extent of the problem is often under-estimated. This may be due to failure to report splenic injury on the operation note or inaccurate recording of the indication for splenectomy. In this review article we have tried to estimate the incidence of iatrogenic splenic injury during abdominal surgery, the morbidity and mortality associated with splenic injury and the risk factors for injury to the spleen. We have also identified the common types and mechanisms of injury to the spleen and have made suggestions as to how splenic injury can be avoided and, when it occurs, how it should be managed. METHODS: A Medline literature search was performed to identify articles relating to "incidental splenectomy", "iatrogenic splenic injury", "iatrogenic splenectomy" and "splenectomy as a complication of common abdominal procedures". The relevant articles from the reference lists were also obtained. RESULTS: Up to 40% of all splenectomies are performed for iatrogenic injury. The risk of splenic injury is highest during left hemicolectomy (1-8%), open anti-reflux procedures (3-20%), left nephrectomy (4-13%) and during exposure and reconstruction of the proximal abdominal aorta and its branches (21-60%). Splenic injury results in prolonged operating time, increased blood loss and longer hospital stay. It is also associated with a two to ten-fold increase in infection rate and up to a doubling of morbidity rates. Mortality is also reported to be higher in patients undergoing splenectomy for iatrogenic injury. The risk of injury to the spleen is higher in patients who have previously undergone abdominal surgery, in the elderly and in obese patients. A transperitoneal approach significantly increases the risk of splenic injury during left nephrectomy compared with an extraperitoneal approach and the risk is even higher if the indication for surgery is malignancy. Excessive traction, injudicious use of retractors and direct trauma are the commonest mechanisms of injury. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of iatrogenic splenic injury is underestimated because of poor documentation. Splenic injury during abdominal surgery can be reduced by achieving good exposure and adequate visualisation, avoiding undue traction and by early careful division of splenic ligaments and adhesions. When the spleen is injured splenic preservation is desirable and often feasible, but this should not be at the expense of excessive blood loss     

成人外伤性脾破裂非手术治疗55例分析

目的对非手术治疗外伤性脾破裂进行临床分析，为外伤性脾破裂临床治疗方法的选择提供初步证据。方法回顾1992年至2006年我院收治的包括选择性脾动脉栓塞和保守治疗的非手术治疗脾破裂患者55例，对治疗成功率、死亡率和并发症发生率进行分析比较，并评价其卫生经济学效益。结果治疗总成功率87．27％（48／55），元患者死亡。损伤严重程度分组，51例脾Ⅰ、Ⅱ级损伤，总有效率90．19％（46／51），再次栓塞或开腹手术5例。4例脾外伤Ⅲ级患者，2例非手术治疗成功，再次栓塞或开腹手术2例。治疗分组分析，传统保守治疗组保脾成功率为81．3％（26／32），选择性脾动脉栓塞组成功率为100％（23／23）（P=0．035）。选择性脾动脉栓塞组2例并发左侧胸腔积液，1例并发左下肺感染；保守治疗组1例并发脾周脓肿。选择性脾动脉栓塞组平均住院日较保守治疗组[（7．9±4．2．1）d比（11．9±4．4．6）d]明显缩短（P=0．045），但住院花费增加[（4216±668．4）元比（2616±437．8）元]（P〈0．05）。结论脾损伤Ⅰ、Ⅱ级患者适宜保脾治疗，选择性脾动脉栓塞术比传统非手术保守治疗疗效更为可靠，在医疗设备和经济条件允许的情况下建议考虑栓塞治疗。     

Management of intraoperative splenic injury during laparoscopic urological surgery

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? The exact incidence of splenic injury during laparoscopic urologic procedures is not known; however, it is an uncommon occurrence. Also, the optimal treatment algorithm is not well delineated and the efficacy of successfully treating minor injuries to the spleen without resorting to splenectomy is not well described in the urologic literature. This study outlines the rate of splenic injury during a variety of laparoscopic urologic procedures and we outline a treatment algorithm that has been successfully employed in the management of these patients, which in all cases, did not lead to splenectomy. An important point is also that multiple adjunctive hemostatic measures should be used when a splenic injury is recognized and that a thorough search should ensue when suspicion of an occult splenic injury exists, as an unrecognized splenic injury may lead to severe post operative haemorrhagic complications.

OBJECTIVE

? To evaluate incidence, risk factors for, and management of intraoperative splenic injury in our laparoscopic patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? All patients undergoing laparoscopic urological upper tract procedures at two institutions between January 2001 and April 2006 and January 2000 and December 2008, respectively, were retrospectively examined for complications. ? From these patients, those with intraoperative splenic injuries were selected and examined. ? Possible factors predisposing patients to splenic injury were evaluated and the management plan for each patient was analysed to identify optimal treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

? Of 2620 patients undergoing upper tract urological laparoscopic surgery, 14 patients (0.5%) sustained splenic injury and underwent left‐sided surgery, 13 via a transperitoneal approach. ? In 12 of the 14 patients, the splenic injury was recognized intraoperatively and all were effectively managed laparoscopically with a combination of argon beam coagulation, biological haemostatic agent FloSeal^TM (Baxter, Deerfield, IL, USA), and bio‐absorbable Surgicel® (Johnson and Johnson, Somerville, NJ, USA); none of these patients required splenectomy or developed any postoperative complications. ? In two patients, the splenic injury was not recognized intraoperatively; both patients presented with delayed haemorrhage necessitating open splenectomy in each instance.

CONCLUSIONS

? Splenic injuries are uncommon during laparoscopic urological surgery, but when a significant splenic injury occurs, it can be effectively managed laparoscopically, using conservative measures, without need for splenectomy. ? If the splenic injury is not recognized intraoperatively, delayed haemorrhage is likely to occur necessitating emergent re‐exploration and splenectomy. ? Prompt and accurate intraoperative diagnosis of splenic injury is critical for achieving a good outcome.     

Iatrogenic splenic injury

In a previous report from this institution, 21% of splenectomies performed between 1957 and 1967 were for iatrogenic injury to the spleen. In the present study, encompassing the years 1971 to 1987, the frequency of iatrogenic splenic injury was reduced to 9% (134 of 1,557 splenectomies). However, there has been no evidence of a progressive decrease in accidental splenic injury from 1971 to 1987. Although the number of injuries related to operations on the stomach or repair of hiatus hernia have declined somewhat in the past decade, the incidence of splenic injuries secondary to colectomy and nephrectomy has not changed appreciably, and injuries linked to complex operations on the aorta and its branches (19 cases) have increased. No evidence could be found that morbidity was increased if the splenic injury is promptly recognized and managed by splenectomy. However, 13 of these 134 patients required reoperation for control of continued bleeding from unrecognized iatrogenic splenic trauma. Constant awareness of the continued prevalence of this operative complication and the mechanisms by which it is produced should enable surgeons to lessen its frequency and potential sequelae.     

脾脏占位病变的诊断治疗

目的了解目前脾脏占位病变的疾病谱并探讨相应的诊断治疗措施。方法收集湖北省十堰市太和医院近10年来收治的脾脏占位性病变的患者资料,对其临床表现、诊断以及治疗效果进行回顾性分析。结果共收治所有脾脏占位病变患者126例,其中良性病变89例（72.4%）,良性疾病中以脾囊肿,血管瘤和结核最常见,恶性肿瘤中以淋巴瘤和转移性肿瘤常见。脾切除术仍然是治疗脾脏占位病变的主要措施,对大部分病人的治疗效果理想。结论对人群的定期体检是早期发现脾脏占位病变的有效手段,脾切除术可使大多数脾脏占位患者取得满意的治疗效果。