钝性胰腺损伤合并主胰管损伤的诊断和治疗:附35例报告

目的探讨钝性胰腺损伤合并主胰管损伤的早期诊断和合理的外科治疗方法。方法回顾性分析1995年4月至2005年4月间35例胰腺钝性伤病人的临床资料，其早期诊断和损伤严重度的分级根据术前动态的淀粉酶及影像学检查（特别是动态螺旋CT和MRCP扫描）和早期外科手术的术中发现，就胰腺钝性伤的早期诊断方法、不同的手术处理方式及并发症等进行分析。结果22例Ⅲ级胰腺损伤病人中，14例行远端胰腺切除术和脾切除术，6例行远端胰腺切除术和保留脾脏手术，2例行单纯胰周引流术。8例Ⅳ级胰腺损伤病人中，2例行远端胰腺切除术和脾切除术，2例行胰尾切除术，4例行胰腺空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术。5例Ⅴ级胰腺损伤病人中，4例由于复合伤情较重且合并十二指肠损伤，根据伤害严重度（injury severity score，ISS）评分，首先应用损伤控制手术先进行止血和制止肠内容物的外溢、胰腺外引流等简化手术，于急诊ICU监护待血液动力学稳定后，于受伤后48-72h再次行彻底性手术，1例胰头严重毁损伤行Whipple手术，平均住院时间是40d（2～147d），总死亡率是14．3％（35例中5例），其余均治愈。结论对胰腺损伤病人，及时正确的诊断和合理的外科手术治疗是减少死亡率，改善预后的重要因素。     

损伤控制性手术在胰腺外伤中的应用研究

目的探讨损伤控制外科在胰腺损伤病人治疗中的临床应用效果。方法回顾分析2006年2月至2016年2月收治的40例胰腺外伤病人的临床资料。40例病人中,男性30例,女性10例;年龄14~60岁,平均34岁;损伤的类型:闭合性胰腺损伤30例(75.0%),开放性胰腺损伤10例(25.0%)。按即胰腺损伤分级标准,Ⅰ级损伤10例(25.0%),Ⅱ级损伤11例(27.5%),工、Ⅱ级均无主胰管损伤;Ⅲ级损伤12例(30%),Ⅳ级为近侧胰腺横断伤或累及壶腹部的裂伤4例(10.0%),V级为胰头毁损伤3例(7.5%)。本组所有病例在积极抗休克的同时均行急诊剖腹探查术,术中均证实为胰腺损伤。结果 39例治愈出院(97.5%),死亡1例(2.5%);因合并脾蒂撕裂致腹腔大出血术中死亡;围术期发生并发症10例,并发症发生率为25.0%,并发症有胰瘘5例,肠瘘3例,腹腔脓肿及假性胰腺囊肿各1例,经手术或保守治疗痊愈。结论胰腺外伤并发症多,病死率高,选择合理的手术时机及手术方法并且严格掌握损伤控制原则是降低胰腺外伤病人的病死率和并发症发生率的关键。     

严重胰腺损伤合并多脏器损伤的外科治疗

目的 探讨严重胰腺损伤合并多脏器损伤的治疗方法.方法 回顾分析2005年1月-2010年12月收治的15例严重胰腺损伤合并多脏器损伤临床资料,包括胰腺损伤Ⅲ级10例,Ⅳ级4例,Ⅴ级l例.行Whipple手术1例,胰尾部切除+脾切除术3例,胰腺周围双套管负压持续冲洗引流10例,胰腺周围穿刺引流术l例,同时进行合并伤的治疗.结果 术后发生胰瘘12例,胰腺周围脓肿5例.治愈14例,1例经胰周穿刺引流治疗后1个月突发出血死亡.结论 严重胰腺损伤手术方式需个体化,术中遵循损伤控制性理念,胰周放置多根双套管,术后持续冲洗和负压引流,早期肠内营养等是提高治疗效果的关键.     

胰腺损伤的诊断和治疗(附30例报告)

目的　探讨胰腺损伤的诊断及治疗。方法　回顾 2 0年来处理的胰腺损伤 30例。结果治愈 2 8例 ,死亡 2例。发生并发症 16例 ,发生率 5 3.3% ,其中胰腺假性囊肿 5例 ,胰瘘 8例 ,腹腔脓肿 3例。治愈率 93.3% ,死亡率 6 .7%。结论　胰腺损伤早期诊断难 ,常伴合并伤 ,剖腹探查术是早期诊断最可靠的手段。术中应首先处理腹腔严重的合并伤 ,再循止血、清创、充分引流、保存胰腺功能的原则 ,并根据损伤的程度采取不同的手术方法。运用生物蛋白胶封闭损伤创面对防止胰腺瘘有一定疗效。     

胰腺颈部断裂伤手术指征及术式选择

治疗胰颈部断裂伤可早期通过内镜放置胰管支架引流,若出现腹痛加重应手术治疗;若术前循环系统不稳,遵循损伤控制外科理念,填塞、暂时关闭腹腔后二期手术;若合并胰体尾严重挫伤,行胰体尾切除及断端修补术;若十二指肠完好,行保留十二指肠胰头切除术;若十二指肠有损伤,行十二指肠修补、远端胰腺空肠吻合、胰管结扎、断面褥式缝合术;若胰头十二指肠严重受损,同样遵循损伤控制原则。术后并发症包括出血、胰瘘、假性囊肿,预防关键在于彻底止血、充分引流;若假性囊肿直径＜5 cm可保守治疗,若急剧增大可选择超声或CT引导下置管引流或囊肿形成6~8周后手术治疗。     

���پ�������������ָ������ʽѡ��

治疗胰颈部断裂伤可早期通过内镜放置胰管支架引流,若出现腹痛加重应手术治疗;若术前循环系统不稳,遵循损伤控制外科理念,填塞、暂时关闭腹腔后二期手术;若合并胰体尾严重挫伤,行胰体尾切除及断端修补术;若十二指肠完好,行保留十二指肠胰头切除术;若十二指肠有损伤,行十二指肠修补、远端胰腺空肠吻合、胰管结扎、断面褥式缝合术;若胰头十二指肠严重受损,同样遵循损伤控制原则。术后并发症包括出血、胰瘘、假性囊肿,预防关键在于彻底止血、充分引流;若假性囊肿直径<5 cm可保守治疗,若急剧增大可选择超声或CT引导下置管引流或囊肿形成6~8周后手术治疗。     

闭合性胰十二指肠损伤的诊治

目的:探讨闭合性胰十二指肠的诊治方法。方法:73例患者均行手术治疗,其中行十二指肠憩室化8例,胰十二指肠切除术6例,单纯修补30例,胰体尾切除14例,近端胰缝合修补、远端胰肠吻合4例,单纯腹腔引流11例。结果:术后并发症31例,再手术6例,死亡6例。结论:由于胰腺十二指肠的解剖结构和生理特点及较多的合并伤,使闭合性胰十二指肠损伤早期诊断较为困难复杂,术中对胰管损伤的准确判断是胰十二指肠损伤严重程度分级的重要标准和术式选择的主要依据,早诊断、早手术、合理的术式是减少并发症率、降低死亡率、提高疗效的关键。     

胰腺十二指肠损伤的诊治体会

目的探讨胰腺、十二指肠损伤的诊断及治疗经验。方法回顾性分析45例胰腺、十二指肠损伤患者,包括26例胰腺损伤、13例十二指肠损伤及6例胰十二指肠复合伤的临床资料。结果45例患者中33例（73．3％）合并伴发伤;CT诊断符合率为72．7％（8／11）;4例保守治疗,41例行手术治疗;共21例（46．7％）出现并发症,其中胰瘘9例;治愈38例（84．4％）,7例死亡（15．6％）。结论本病早期诊断困难,伴发伤多,并发症发生率及死亡率高。剖腹探查是诊断胰十二指肠损伤的主要方法,根据损伤部位、程度及全身情况选择合理术式,术后积极防治并发症是提高治愈的关键。     

严重胰腺损伤的诊断与手术策略

目的 探讨胰腺损伤的诊断,提高严重胰腺损伤的救治水平。方法 对1986年1月－1998年12月我院收治的14例胰腺横断及胰头毁损患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 本组胰体尾横断5例、胰颈部横断6例、胰头毁损3例,11例有腹内合并伤。术前诊断4例,开腹探查诊断9例,首次手术漏诊、再次开腹诊断1例。手术方式：远端胰腺切除5例,近端缝合加远端胰腺空肠吻合5例,胰头部切除加远端胰腺空肠吻合3例,单纯外引流1例。本组发生胰瘘5例,死亡3例。结论 早期诊断胰腺损伤仍有困难,多数需靠术中发现;根据胰腺损伤的部位和程度选择恰当的手术方式可有效地减少并发症、降低死亡率。     

胰腺损伤的外科处理（附28例报告）

报告了胰腺外伤２８例,其中闭合性损伤２３例、开放性损伤５例,占同期腹外伤的３．７５％。９６．４％合并腹部其它脏器损伤,术前确诊率１０．７％,术中确诊占８９．３％,指出腹部损伤有明确剖腹探查指针时尽早手术是早期诊断胰腺外伤的重要途径。根据胰腺损伤程度及合并十二指肠损伤情况分别行单纯胰周引流、胰腺局部缝合止血加胰周引流、损伤远端胰腺切除、损伤近端缝合远端Ｒｏｕｘ－ｅｎ－ｙ胰空肠吻合术、改良十二指肠憩室化、胰头十二指肠切除术。强调选择创伤小、简捷、有效的术式。术后死亡率２１．４％,其中２／３死于严重创伤失血性休克,强调治疗过程中抗休克、及时控制出血、合理选择术式的重要性。生存病例３１．８％发生胰瘘,对防治胰瘘的方法进行了讨论。     

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 pancreatic trauma

The majority of patients who sustain penetrating blunt trauma to the pancreas can be managed with sump drainage, including those with gunshot wounds to the head of the pancreas. Pancreatico-duodenectomy may be indicated in 2 to 3 percent of cases of pancreatic injury. Patients who require resection of 80 percent or more of the pancreas and do not have splenic injury should be considered for a Roux-Y anastomosis to the distal pancreas after ductal injury has been proved. Severe injuries to the body of the pancreas are best managed by distal pancreatectomy. The mortality rate due to pancreatic injury has been less than 3 percent and rarely is the cause of death. To support this conclusion, few normotensive patients die, and no patient with an isolated pancreatic injury in our series died. The severity of injury often dictates the appropriate treatment. A conservative approach is indicated for most pancreatic injuries, resulting in shorter operating time and less blood loss in the unstable patient with multiple injuries. Most important is identification of ductal injury at the initial operation and institution of surgical drainage.     

Management of pancreatic trauma

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic injury can pose a formidable challenge to the surgeon, and failure to manage it correctly may have devastating consequences for the patient. Management options for pancreatic trauma are reviewed and technical issues highlighted. METHOD: The English-language literature on pancreatic trauma from 1970 to 2006 was reviewed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Most pancreatic injuries are minor and can be treated by external drainage. Injuries involving the body, neck and tail of the pancreas, and with suspicion or direct evidence of pancreatic duct disruption, require distal pancreatectomy. Similar injuries affecting the head of the pancreas are best managed by simple external drainage, even if there is suspected pancreatic duct injury. Pancreaticoduodenectomy should be reserved for extensive injuries to the head of the pancreas, and should be practised as part of damage control. Most complications should initially be treated by a combination of nutrition, percutaneous drainage and endoscopic stenting.     

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…     

Pancreatic transection from blunt abdominal trauma: early versus delayed diagnosis and surgical management

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic trauma is relatively uncommon, but carries high morbidity and mortality rates, especially when diagnosis is delayed or inappropriate surgery is attempted. PATIENT MATERIAL: The clinical course and surgical management of 14 patients with distal pancreatic transection or severe laceration with or without main pancreatic duct (MPD) injury caused by blunt abdominal trauma were analyzed in a university teaching hospital. The average age of the 14 patients (12 male, 2 female) was 28.9 years (range 5-56). Six patients had isolated pancreatic trauma, and intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal (mean 0.8) injuries associated with pancreatic transection were seen in the other 8 patients. RESULTS: Nine patients were diagnosed and operated on within the first 24 h. Eight of them underwent transection of the gland with MPD injury; distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy was performed in 3 and without splenectomy in 2, distal pancreatogastrostomy in 1, and - due to associated duodenal laceration and/or contusion of the pancreatic head - pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy in 2. In 1 case (grade II laceration) only external drainage was necessary. All the patients with early, correctly diagnosed parenchymal and ductal injury survived. Only 1 patient required reoperation due to haemorrhage after pancreatoduodenectomy. The other 5 cases were referred elsewhere after initial treatment, and all of them underwent some kind of external drainage. Three had undetected MPD injury, and in the other 2 cases the parenchymal lesions were either underestimated or missed. All of these cases required subsequent resection (1), internal drainage due to fistula (2), or drainage of developed abscess (2). Three of them had severe septic and pulmonary complications; 1 patient with MPD injury was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring delayed surgical intervention after an unsuccessful period of observation or a subsequent operation due to undetected MPD injury demonstrated a higher rate of pancreas-specific mortality and morbidity.     

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     

Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a rare procedure for the management of complex pancreaticoduodenal injuries

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's procedure) is a formidable procedure when undertaken for severe pancreaticoduodenal injury. The purposes of this study were to review our experience with this procedure for trauma; to classify injury grades for both pancreatic and duodenal injuries in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale for pancreatic and duodenal injury; and to validate existing indications for performance of this procedure. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective 126-month study (May 1992 to December 2002) of all patients admitted with proven complex pancreaticoduodenal injuries requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included; mean age was 32 +/- 12 years (SD), mean Revised Trauma Score was 6.84 +/- 2.13 (SD), and mean Injury Severity Score was 27 +/- 8 (SD). There were 17 penetrating injuries (94%) and 1 blunt injury (6%). One of 18 patients had an emergency department thoracotomy and died (100% mortality); 5 of the remaining 17 patients required operating room thoracotomies, and only 1 survived (80% mortality). There was 1 AAST-OIS pancreas grade IV injury, and there were 17 pancreas grade V injuries and 18 AAST-OIS duodenum grade V injuries. Indications for pancreaticoduodenectomy were: massive uncontrollable retropancreatic hemorrhage, 13 patients (72%); massive unreconstructable injury to the head of the pancreas/main pancreatic duct and intrapancreatic portion/distal common bile duct, 18 patients (100%); and massive unreconstructable injury, 18 patients (100%). Mean estimated blood loss was 6,888 +/- 7,866 mL, and overall survival was 67% (12 of 18 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Complex pancreaticoduodenal injuries requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's procedure) are uncommon but highly lethal; virtually all are classified as AAST-OIS grade V for both pancreas and duodenum. Current indications for performance of pancreaticoduodenectomy are valid and should be strictly applied during procedure selection.     

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.     

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.