腹腔镜经腹膜后入路引流治疗重症急性胰腺炎1例报告

<正>目前,重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)的外科治疗在选择手术时机方面虽仍有较多争议[1,2],但迄今,急性胰腺炎出现胰腺及胰周坏死感染或胰周脓肿形成仍是公认的手术适应证之一[3],清除冲洗和引流是最直接有效的方法。传统开腹引流、经腹腔镜前入路引流、B超引导下穿刺置管引流等方式存在患者创伤大、诱发或加重感染、引流效果差等缺点。     

重症急性胰腺炎治疗的研究进展

急性胰腺炎主要由胆石病和过量饮酒引起.总体上,约20%的急性胰腺炎患者发展为重症急性胰腺炎,通常伴有胰腺和胰周组织坏死和/或器官功能衰竭,其病死率超过30%.而在重症急性胰腺炎若干治疗方面,如抗生素的应用、营养支持、手术时机、手术方式等仍存在争议.近年来,微创技术逐渐应用于重症急性胰腺炎的治疗,部分患者可能通过微创手术而获益.     

重症急性胰腺炎新分类标准与分期手术的临床应用

目的探讨新分类标准下重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)的手术时机及分期微创手术方式的应用情况。方法对广东省人民医院2007年1月至2012年12月收治的90例传统重症急性胰腺炎病人进行回顾性分析,男性54例,女性36例,年龄18~75岁,平均年龄(45.1±9.5)岁。将传统重症急性胰腺炎划分为中重症急性胰腺炎(MSAP)组(38例)和SAP组(52例)。接受外科手术干预的有50例,按手术时间分为早期手术组(≤2周)12例,延期手术组(2周)38例。结果早期手术组总病死率为41.67%,延期手术组总病死率为13.16%,两组相比差异有统计学意义(χ~2=4.63,P=0.03);传统重症急性胰腺炎病人分组后,MSAP组11例接受外科干预(29%),SAP组39例接受外科干预(75%),MSAP组和SAP组的外科干预情况比较,差异有统计学意义(χ~2=5.77,P=0.01)。结论分期微创手术是SAP外科中可以考虑的选择,新的划分标准对外科干预时机的选择有一定的指导作用。     

重症急性胰腺炎营养治疗的策略与效果

一、重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)营养治疗的意义 急性胰腺炎主要的病理基础是胰酶对胰腺和胰周组织的自身消化,导致胰腺实质或胰周组织坏死及局部并发症(假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿等).     

重症急性胰腺炎肠粘膜屏障功能的损害及预防

重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)是临床上常见的危急重症,其中胰腺和胰周感染是SAP的主要死因,即使在发病早期救治成功,也常在疾病的第二、三周发生胰腺及其它器官继发感染,导致死亡[1].胰周脓肿的发生率虽不超过SAP的5%,但死亡却占SAP死亡患者的80%以上.     

重症急性胰腺炎手术的时机和术式探讨

目的　探讨重症急性胰腺炎 (SAP)手术治疗的时机和术式。方法　对 58例SAP患者采用手术治疗的时机、术式及疗效进行回顾性分析。结果　 58例SAP患者均于入院后 2～ 48h(平均 1 8.5h)行手术治疗 ,手术时充分引流 ,清除大部分胰腺组织 ;早期手术死亡率 3 .5 % ,并发症发生率 1 8.9% ,疗效满意。结论　SAP患者经保守治疗无效后可在 1周内行手术 ;手术方式应以充分引流、去除病因为基本原则。     

重症急性胰腺炎的营养支持

重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)约占所有急性胰腺炎(AP)的15％～20％左右，是指具有明显腹膜炎体征和(或)伴有器官功能障碍者．胰腺及胰周多有坏死，病死率为20％～60％。近年来，SAP的治疗多以非手术治疗为主，重点是脏器功能维护、液体复苏、纠正内稳态失调、抑制胰腺外分泌和预防胰腺坏死合并感染。只有在胰腺坏死合并感染时，才考虑手术     

急性胰腺炎的肠内营养支持进展

急性胰腺炎(Acute pancreatitis,AP)是胰腺分泌的消化酶原在胰腺内被激活,引起胰腺及胰周组织自身消化,产生急性化学性炎症,大量的炎症因子释放至全身可引起全身炎症反应。根据临床表现可以分为轻症急性胰腺炎(Mild acute pancreatitis,MAP)和重症急性胰腺炎(Severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)。前者约占80%,呈自限性;后者约占20%,     

��֢������������������ʱ������ʽѡ��

重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)是涉及多学科、多系统的复杂疾病,关于其治疗方案多年来一直存有争论。随着重症医学及SAP发病机制研究的进展,治疗的天平不断偏向非手术治疗,越来越多的SAP病人通过非手术治疗获得痊愈。虽然如此,但在胆源性胰腺炎、暴发性胰腺炎等特定类型的胰腺炎及坏死感染、胰腺脓肿、胰腺假性囊肿、出血等并发症的治疗中,外科手术仍然有着无可替代的重要作用。把握手术的适应证及手术时机,选择合适的手术方式,对提高SAP的疗效有着重要的临床意义。     

急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2014版)

2007年中华医学会外科学分会胰腺外科学组发表的《重症急性胰腺炎诊治指南》对我国急性胰腺炎(AP)的规范化诊断与治疗及临床疗效的改善发挥了重要作用.近年来,AP的研究取得了巨大进展,并对其诊断与治疗产生了影响.为此有必要对之进行修订,修订后的指南更名为《急性胰腺炎诊治指南(2014版)》.AP的诊断依据包括临床特征、血清胰酶浓度及CT检查表现.改良的CT严重指数评分(MCTSI)常用于AP的炎症反应及坏死程度的判断.病理分型有间质水肿型胰腺炎和坏死型胰腺炎.AP依据严重程度分为轻症急性胰腺炎(MAP)、中重症急性胰腺炎(MSAP)和重症急性胰腺炎(SAP).MSAP与SAP的主要区别在于器官衰竭持续时间不同,MSAP为短暂性(≤48 h),SAP为持续性(＞48 h).器官衰竭采用改良的Marshall评分来判断.病程分为3期.早期(急性期)为发病至2周,此期以全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)和器官衰竭为主要表现,此期构成第1个死亡高峰.中期(演进期)为发病2周至4周,以胰周液体积聚或坏死性液体积聚为主要表现.后期(感染期)为发病4周以后,可发生胰腺及胰周坏死组织合并感染,此期构成MSAP和SAP患者的第2个死亡高峰.局部并发症分为急性胰周液体积聚(APFC)、急性坏死物积聚(ANC)、包裹性坏死(WON)及胰腺假性囊肿.病因治疗主要是胆道疾病的处理.MAP患者病情稳定后即可行胆囊切除术或胆道探查术,MSAP和SAP患者应在后期或行坏死组织清除时一并处理.早期非手术治疗重点是液体复苏及器官功能保护.MSAP和SAP患者肠道功能恢复后即行肠内营养支持治疗.对于部分易感人群选择性使用抗生素治疗.ACS的处理措施包括胃肠道减压及导泻、镇痛镇静、使用肌松剂及床边血滤减轻组织水肿,B超或CT引导下腹腔内与腹膜后引流减轻腹腔压力.外科治疗的指征主要是胰腺局部并发症继发感染或产生压迫症状.无菌性坏死积液无症状者无需手术治疗.手术治疗应遵循延期原则.感染性坏死可先行针对性抗生素治疗及B超或CT引导下经皮穿刺引流(PCD).胰腺感染性坏死的手术方式可分为PCD、内镜、微创手术(主要包括小切口手术、视频辅助手术)及开放手术(包括经腹或经腹膜后途径的胰腺坏死组织清除并置管引流).胰腺感染性坏死病情复杂多样,各种手术方式可遵循个体化原则单独或联合应用.     

重症急性胰腺炎外科手术干预时机的探讨

目的 探讨重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)外科手术干预的时机.方法 回顾我院1998年3月～2007年12月收治的157例SAP病例,按胰腺坏死面积及是否感染分级,分别分析外科干预及保守治疗对治愈率的影响.结果 本资料显示:总手术治愈率为80.4%,总非手术治愈率为87.1%,差异无统计学意义.30%的坏死面积者,非手术疗法效佳;50%的坏死面积者,手术疗法效佳;而在30%～50%之间者,手术及非手术疗法疗效无明显差异.胰腺坏死未合并感染组,非手术疗法效佳;町疑感染组及胰腺坏死合并感染组,手术疗法效佳.结论 外科干预在治疗SAP中占有重要地位,应结合胰腺坏死面积及是否感染等具体情况选择外科手术干预的时机.     

Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) develops in about 25% of patients with acute pancreatitis. Severity of acute pancreatitis is linked to the presence of systemic organ dysfunctions and/or necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors independently determining the outcome of SAP are early multiorgan failure (MOF), infection of necrosis, and extended necrosis (>50%). Morbidity of SAP is biphasic, in the first week it is strongly related to systemic inflammatory response syndrome while, sepsis due to infected pancreatic necrosis leading to MOF syndrome occurs in the later course after the first week. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography provides the highest diagnostic accuracy for necrotizing pancreatitis when performed after the first week of disease. Patients who suffer early organ dysfunctions or are at risk for developing a severe disease require early intensive care treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis has not been shown as an effective preventive treatment. Early enteral feeding is based on a high level of evidence, resulting in a reduction of local and systemic infection. Patients suffering infected necrosis causing clinical sepsis are candidates for intervention. Hospital mortality of SAP after interventional or surgical debridement has decreased to below 20% in high-volume centers.     

重症急性胰腺炎局部并发症外科干预策略

重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)病程后期以感染性胰腺坏死为主的第2次"死亡高峰"是临床治疗的重要挑战。外科医师对感染性胰腺坏死干预指征、时机、策略及方式的掌控尤为重要,对其早期预测与识别、术后管理与协作也需不断加强。目前,感染性胰腺坏死的外科干预呈现微创化、阶段化、多学科化、专业化和多元化特点,临床医师不仅应建立以疾病为中心的综合治疗体系,还应重视SAP的非感染性局部并发症,防患于未然。笔者结合临床实践,就目前SAP局部并发症外科干预的临床实践进行探讨,旨在进一步提高SAP患者后期整体治愈率。     

��֢������������Ƹ�Ԥ��ʱ����ָ���뷽ʽѡ��

目的探讨重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)外科干预的时机、指征与方式选择。方法回顾性分析1992年7月至2004年1月收治的216例SAP病例,其中非手术治疗87例(40.3%),外科干预治疗129例(59.7%)。结果总并发症发生率47.2%(102/216),总病死率17.6%(38/216),总治愈率82.4%(178/216)。并发症发生率:非手术组为36.8%(32/87),外科干预组为54.3%(70/129),P>0.05;病死率:非手术组为16.1%(14/87),外科干预组为18.6%(24/129),P>0.05;治愈率:非手术组为83.9%(73/87),外科干预组为81.4%(105/129),P>0.05。结论正确地把握SAP的外科干预时机与指征,合理地选择外科干预方式,对于决定SAP预后至关重要。     

急性胰腺炎临床研究进展与展望

近20年来，多个急性胰腺炎相关诊治指南相继颁布，急性胰腺炎的治疗模式及理念发生了很大变化。重症急性胰腺炎病程中的“两次死亡高峰”是临床治疗中的一大挑战。早期为炎症反应期，应进行ICU为主体的多学科综合救治，包括脏器功能维持、早期液体复苏、合理使用抗生素、营养支持及腹腔间隔室综合征的处理；后期以感染性并发症为主，外科医师对于外科干预指征、时机及方式的掌控尤为重要。现代重症急性胰腺炎的外科干预呈现微创化、阶段化、多学科化、专业化和多元化5大特点，临床医生应建立以疾病为中心的综合治疗模式。此外，还应重视重症急性胰腺炎的病因治疗及后期并发症，防患于未然。     

重症急性胰腺炎手术时机和手术方式的探讨

目的 探讨重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)手术时机和手术方式。方法 对1986~1998年收治的59例SAP患者手术时机、术式及病死率进行回顾性分析。结果 (1)手术病死率为20.3%,其中66.7%为40~60岁患者。性别及病因分类无差异。1992年以前早期手术为主,病死率26.7%,并发症发生率40.0%;1992年以后延期手术为主,病死率13.8%,并发症发生率24.1%。(2)随手术距发病时间延长,病死率逐渐降低,但差异无显著性(P>0.05)。(3)随胰腺坏死程度增加,手术病死率显著增加(P<0.05)。(4)休克、Ⅲ级胰坏死及多脏器功能衰竭的相关病死率分别为42.9%、40.0%和71.4%(P均<0.05)。(5)术式以胆胰联合手术及单纯胰病灶清除引流为主。结论 SAP手术时机是影响手术病死率的重要因素,应采用延期与个体化相结合的处理原则。术式选择应以简单有效,充分引流,清除病灶,去除病因为基本原则。     

Routine laboratory parameters in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis by the time of operative pancreatic debridement: Food for thought

BACKGROUNDTiming of invasive intervention such as operative pancreatic debridement (OPD) in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) is linked to the degree of encapsulation in necrotic collections and controlled inflammation. Additional markers of these processes might assist decision-making on the timing of surgical intervention. In our opinion, it is logical to search for such markers among routine laboratory parameters traditionally used in ANP patients, considering simplicity and cost-efficacy of routine laboratory methodologies.AIMTo evaluate laboratory variables in ANP patients in the preoperative period for the purpose of their use in the timing of surgery.METHODSA retrospective analysis of routine laboratory parameters in 53 ANP patients undergoing OPD between 2017 and 2020 was performed. Dynamic changes of routine hematological and biochemical indices were examined in the preoperative period. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors. Survivors were divided into subgroups with short and long post-surgery length of stay (LOS) in hospital. Correlation analysis was used to evaluate association of laboratory variables with LOS. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for patient mortality.RESULTSSeven patients (15%) with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and 46 patients (85%) with moderately SAP (MSAP) were included in the study. Median age of participants was 43.2 years; 33 (62.3%) were male. Pancreatitis etiology included biliary (15%), alcohol (80%), and idiopathic/other (5%). Median time from diagnosis to OPD was ≥ 4 wk. Median postoperative LOS was at the average of 53 d. Mortality was 19%. Progressive increase of platelet count in preoperative period was associated with shortened LOS. Increased aspartate aminotransferase and direct bilirubin (DB) levels the day before the OPD along with weak progressive decrease of DB in preoperative period were reliable predictors for ANP patient mortality.CONCLUSIONMultifactorial analysis of dynamic changes of routine laboratory variables can be useful for a person-tailored timing of surgical intervention in ANP patients.     

Débridement and closed packing for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of débridement and closed packing for necrotizing pancreatitis and to determine the optimal timing of surgical intervention based on patient outcomes. METHODS: Between February 1990 and November 1996, 64 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis were treated with necrosectomy followed by closed packing of the cavity with stuffed Penrose and closed suction drains. The mean APACHE II score immediately before surgery was 9, and 31% of the patients had organ failure. Patients were stratified with an outcome score based on death and major complications; this was correlated with the timing of surgical intervention. The data were then subjected to cut-point analysis by sequential group comparison. RESULTS: Patients underwent surgery a median of 31 days after diagnosis. Fifty-six percent had infected necrosis. The mortality rate was 6.2% and was no different in infected or sterile necrosis. Eleven patients required a second surgical procedure and 13 required percutaneous drainage; a single surgical procedure sufficed in 69%. Enteric fistulae occurred in 16% of patients. The mean hospital stay after surgery was 41 days, and the interval until return to regular activities was 147 days. A significant negative correlation between duration of pancreatitis and outcome scores was found, and sequential group comparison demonstrated that the change point at which significantly better outcomes were encountered was day 27. CONCLUSION: Débridement of pancreatic necrosis followed by closed packing and drainage is accomplished with a low mortality rate and reduced rates of complications and second surgical procedures. Although intervention is best deferred until the demarcation of necrosis is complete, delay beyond the fourth week confers no additional advantage.     

重症急性胰腺炎手术疗效的影响因素

目的 探讨重症急性胰腺炎病人手术疗效的影响因素.方法 观察分析从2005年1月至2007年7月于瑞金医院外科收治的SAP病人,对其中初次在该院手术的90例病人进行疗效影响因素的分析,并采用logistic回归,分别对FAP手术病人及非暴发性SAP手术病人进行关于手术效果的分析.结果 SAP手术病人存活率为81.11%,其中FAP手术病人存活率为75%.Logistic回归分析显示年龄、手术当日脏器功能障碍程度对所有SAP病人的手术疗效影响大.对于FAP病人行logistic回归分析显示在发病2周内行手术治疗比2周后手术疗效好;相反,非暴发性SAP病人则在发病2周后行手术治疗比2周内行手术疗效好.结论 手术指征和手术时机的合理选择是疗效提高的关键因素,FAP病人主要根据脏器功能障碍及腹内高压的发展趋势决定,最佳时机一般在发病两周内;而非暴发性SAP病人中,主要根据胰腺坏死感染及胰腺坏死相关的脏器功能障碍,最佳时机一般在发病两周后.     

感染性胰腺坏死的诊治进展

感染性胰腺坏死（IPN）是急性胰腺炎最严重的并发症之一，常引起严重的脓毒症和器官功能衰竭，甚至导致患者死亡。近年来，随着急性胰腺炎治疗理念和技术的不断进步，IPN的病死率有所下降。但IPN的诊断，尤其是早期诊断仍十分困难，IPN的干预时机、干预方式和干预策略仍有较多争议。并且，由于IPN的诊治往往涉及多学科合作，因此，统一认识、充分发挥多学科诊疗模式的优势显得十分重要。笔者通过文献复习并充分结合本单位的实践经验，就IPN的诊断、病原学变化及治疗进展等进行系统阐述。