肝外伤96例临床分析

目的 探讨肝外伤早期诊断与治疗方法，方法 回顾性分析采用不同手段治疗各科肝外伤的临床资料，包括手术治疗89例，非手术治疗9例(其中中转于术2例)，结果 治愈91例，治愈率94．7％，死亡5例，死亡率5．3％，3例死于肝内血管损伤大出血，2例死于多器官功能衰竭。结论 对于Ⅰ级肝外伤，可采取非手术治疗，Ⅱ级血流动力学稳定呵行非手术治疗。Ⅲ～Ⅵ型肝外伤，一经诊断应立即手术。     

外伤性肝脏损伤的诊治体会

目的 探讨外伤性肝脏损伤的诊断和治疗经验.方法 回顾性分析我院2001年1月至2009年5月收治的28例肝外伤的临床资料,根据AAST分级:Ⅰ级10例(35.7%),Ⅱ级13例(46.4%), Ⅲ级4例(14.3%),Ⅳ级1例(3.6%).其中行非手术治疗6例(21.4%),手术治疗22例(78.6%).结果 本组治愈26例(92.9%),死亡2例(7.1%),为严重肝脏损伤行清创后部分肝叶切除和失血性休克并发多器官功能衰竭死亡;发生并发症5例(17.8%),其中腹腔内感染2例,肺部感染1例,胆漏1例,膈下脓肿1例,均经保守治疗痊愈.结论 轻型肝外伤可选择严密观察下的非手术治疗,而多数肝外伤需手术治疗,术式应遵循个体化原则,重视并发症处理.     

肝脏外伤非手术治疗的应用

目的:指导肝脏外伤非手术治疗方案的选择应用。方法:本院通过时1995年以来的17例肝脏损伤非手术治疗效果进行分析,总结出肝脏损伤不同级别非手术治疗的效果。结果:肝脏损伤Ⅰ、Ⅱ级组非手术治疗全部治愈;Ⅲ级组1例治愈,1例中转手术而愈。结论:对于肝脏损伤Ⅰ、Ⅱ级且无其他腹内脏器严重合并伤者可行非手术治疗。     

肝外伤124例诊治分析

目的　探讨肝外伤早期诊断与治疗的方法。方法　回顾性分析采用不同手段治疗的各种肝外伤的临床资料 ,包括非手术治疗 2 7例 (中转手术 3例 ) ,手术治疗 99例。结果　非手术治疗组治愈 2 4例 ,中转手术 3例 ;手术治疗 10 2例 (包括中转手术 3例 )治愈 95例 ,死亡 7例。总治愈率 94.4% ( 117/12 4) ,病死率 5 .6% ( 7/12 4)。 5例死于肝内血管损伤大出血 ,2例死于多器官衰竭。术后并发症有 :膈下感染 3例、肝内脓肿 6例、腹腔积液 8例、切口感染 7例和腹腔脓肿 2例 ,均治愈。结论　对I型肝外伤可采取非手术治疗 ;II～IV型肝钝性损伤 ,血液动力学稳定可行非手术治疗 ;II～VI型肝损伤、伴腹腔大出血或其他脏器损伤者 ,一经诊断应立即手术     

肝外伤160例临床分析

目的:探讨肝外伤的诊断和治疗方法。方法:回顾性分析160例肝外伤患者的临床资料，其中闭合性肝损伤96例和开放性肝损伤64例。结果:160例肝外伤中1例Ⅳ级伤因合并严重胸廓挤压伤入院后30 min内死亡，其余159例中Ⅰ～Ⅲ级损伤45例（Ⅰ级9例，Ⅱ级31例，Ⅲ级5例），采用非手术治疗，并发症4例（8.9 %），均治愈，治愈率100 %;手术治疗114例，其中Ⅱ级7例，Ⅲ级67例，Ⅳ级20例，Ⅴ级8例，Ⅵ级12例，治愈112例（98.2 %）,发生各类并发症共7例（6.1 %）：术后并发ARDS死亡1例，术后再出血2例（1例死亡，1例痊愈）;另肝脓肿2例，胆瘘2例，经治疗痊愈。死亡2例(1.8 %)。结论:对肝外伤诊断的检查应以腹腔穿刺加B超为首选，条件允许时可行腹部CT检查。对血液动力学稳定的I和II级、部分III级损伤可在严密监测下行保守治疗;部分II级损伤、大部分III级损伤、所有Ⅳ~VI级损伤以行手术治疗为宜。     

肝外伤的非手术治疗（附66例报告）

目的 探讨肝外伤非手术治疗的临床意义及适用证。方法 回顾性分析1987年12月-2000年12月收治的66例肝外伤病例行非手术治疗的临床资料。结果 66例肝外伤中属Ⅰ级者38例（57.6%),Ⅱ级18例(27.3%),Ⅲ级10例（15.2%),治愈64例（97.0%),包括并发达出血中转手术治愈2例,死亡2例（3.0%)。死亡原因为合并重度脑外伤务,并发肝脓肿4例（6.1%),均经非手术疗法治愈。结论 肝外伤行非手术治疗适应于Ⅰ、Ⅱ级肝外伤及少部份Ⅲ级肝外伤,在各种监测方法中血流动力学监测尤为重要。B超监测有重要意义。非手术治疗中要注意并发症的处理,并发大出血者应及时中转手术。     

肝外伤的诊治体会(附55例报告)

目的 总结肝外伤的诊断和治疗经验.方法 回顾55例肝外伤患者的临床资料.结果 55例肝外伤中Ⅰ～Ⅱ级18例,Ⅲ级15例,Ⅳ级17例,Ⅴ级5例;采用非手术治疗31例,均痊愈;于术治疗24例,痊愈22例,自动出院2例.结论 肝外伤诊断以伞腹B超和腹腔穿刺为首选检杏,血液动力学稳定时可行腹部CT平扫或加增强扫描对判断是否行于术治疗彳丁帮助.目前,肝外伤的治疗主要考虑两个方面:血液动力学的稳定性和外伤的性质:钝挫伤或贳通伤;在判断是否行保守治疗时,血液动力学稳定性比肝外伤分级相对更重要.对血液动力学稳定的Ⅰ级、Ⅱ级和部分Ⅲ级钝性肝外伤可存严密连续临测下行非于术治疗;根据m液动力学变化和伤情判断及时中转于术;对血液动力学不稳定的部分Ⅲ级、Ⅳ级和Ⅴ级严重肝外伤以下术治疗为宜.早期复苏、有效止血、充分引流和防治术后并发症足降低严重肝外伤病死率的关键.     

钝性脾损伤非手术治疗探讨

目的 探讨钝性脾损伤非手术治疗的监测和治疗方法.方法 回顾分析2005年9月至2008年4月连续收治的95例钝性脾损伤患者中行非手术治疗的82例(86.3%)患者的临床资料.其中75例应用经皮腹腔穿刺置管引流、监测腹腔出血,38例行非术中自体血回输.全部病例随访3周～8个月.结果 82例非手术治疗全部成功,其中Ⅲ～Ⅳ级钝性脾损伤34例、55岁以上者6例、损伤严重度评分≥16分者14例.37例腹腔出血量500 ml,引流腹腔血量30～2400 ml.38例回输自体血量共23 300 ml,平均613 ml.随访除脾介入术后并发脾假性囊肿1例外,无延迟出血、腹腔感染等并发症发生.结论 大多数血流动力学稳定的钝性脾损伤可通过非手术治疗治愈.运用经皮腹腔穿刺置管引流回收并监测腹腔出血及非术中自体血回输技术,可明显提高钝性脾损伤的非手术治疗率和成功率.     

肝外伤58例治疗分析

目的探讨肝外伤的诊断及治疗方法。方法回顾性总结了1999年6月至2003年6月经手术治疗肝外伤患者43例及非手术治疗患者15例。结果采用手术治疗43例(77.6%),40例治愈,3例死亡。非手术治疗15例(25.9%),治愈13例,死亡2例。死亡原因为早期失血性休克及器官功能衰竭。结论B超是诊断闭合性损伤的首选辅助检查,在病情允许下应行CT检查,对伤情复杂者尤为重要。在有条件时,Ⅰ～Ⅲ型肝外伤可考虑行非手术治疗。手术止血是其关键环节。     

闭合性肝外伤的治疗

目的总结闭合性肝外伤的治疗经验与方法。方法对82例闭合性肝外伤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果非手术治愈23例,手术治愈59例,其中死亡5例。结论在临床上非手术病例逐渐增加,对符合条件特别是血流动力学稳定的患者可在密切监测下进行合理的非手术治疗。     

Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma is the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients. Results of a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: A number of retrospective studies recently have been published concerning nonoperative management of minor liver injuries, with cumulative success rates greater than 95%. However, no prospective analysis that involves a large number of higher grade injuries has been reported. The current study was conducted to evaluate the safety of nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in hemodynamically stable patients regardless of injury severity. METHODS: Over a 22-month period, patients with blunt hepatic injury were evaluated prospectively. Unstable patients underwent laparotomies, and stable patients had abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Those with nonhepatic operative indications underwent exploration, and the remainder were managed nonoperatively in the trauma intensive care unit. This group was compared with a hemodynamically matched operated cohort of blunt hepatic trauma patients (control subjects) who had been prospectively analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients had blunt hepatic trauma. Twenty-four (18%) underwent emergent exploration. Of the remaining 112 patients, 12 (11%) failed observation and underwent celiotomy--5 were liver-related failures (5%) and 7 were nonliver related (6%). Liver related failure rates for CT grades I through V were 20%, 3%, 3%, 0%, and 12%, respectively, and rates according to hemoperitoneum were 2% for minimal, 6% for moderate, and 7% for large. The remaining 100 patients were successfully treated without operation--30% had minor injuries (grades I-II) and 70% had major (grades III-V) injuries. There were no differences in admission characteristics between nonoperative success or failures, except admission systolic blood pressure (127 vs. 104; p < 0.04). Comparing the nonoperative group to the control group, there were no differences in admission hemodynamics or hospital length of stay, but nonoperative patients had significantly fewer blood transfusions (1.9 vs. 4.0 units; p < 0.02) and fewer abdominal complications (3% vs. 11%; p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperative management is safe for hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injury, regardless of injury severity. There are fewer abdominal complications and less transfusions when compared with a matched cohort of operated patients. Based on admission characteristics or CT scan, it is not possible to predict failures; therefore, intensive care unit monitoring is necessary.     

Nonsurgical management of solid abdominal organ injury in patients over 55 years of age

Age greater than 55 is often stated to be a contraindication to nonoperative management of intraperitoneal solid organ injury, based upon failures in early experiences of nonoperative therapy. Refinements in the criteria for nonoperative management of hepatic and splenic injuries have yielded improved success rates compared with those in initial reports, raising questions as to the validity of an age-related contraindication. A retrospective chart review of patients more than 55 years of age sustaining blunt hepatic and/or splenic injury at two urban Level I trauma centers was performed. Patients were stratified into three groups in which selection criteria could not consistently be determined: those managed nonoperatively, those managed operatively, and those who died within 24 hours. The purpose of this review is to identify whether age is a determinant for nonoperative management of abdominal solid organ injury. Eighty-eight patients were identified (mean age, 68.7 +/- 9.8), 17 of whom died in the emergency department or after operative intervention. Of the remaining 71 patients, 37 were originally managed nonoperatively (mean age 69.9 +/- 9.1, mean Injury Severity Score 19.9), 24 sustained hepatic injuries (grades I-IV), 12 sustained splenic injuries (grades I-III), and one patient sustained both organ injuries. Three patients with multisystem trauma died from complications unrelated to their solid organ injury (one brain death, one septic death, and one respiratory arrest). A single patient, with a grade I liver injury, required delayed exploration (for a persistent, unexplained metabolic acidosis) and underwent a nontherapeutic celiotomy. All but one of the 37 patients were successfully treated nonoperatively, for a 97 per cent success rate. We conclude that hemodynamically stable patients more than 55 years of age sustaining intra-abdominal injury can be observed safely. Age alone should no longer be considered an exclusion criterion for nonoperative management of intra-abdominal solid organ injury.     

闭合性肝外伤的非手术治疗决策(附105例报道)

目的:探讨闭合性肝外伤非手术治疗的选择。方法:回顾性分析15年来两所医院急诊收治的闭合性肝外伤患者的临床资料,结合近年国内外相关文献,从流行病学角度分析国内在不同时期闭合性肝外伤非手术治疗的选择、影响因素、结果的异同及变化。结果:国内闭合性肝外伤非手术治疗比例近8年明显升高,成功率有所下降,CT检查应用还不充分,治疗方案选择观念较陈旧。结论:非手术治疗是闭合性肝外伤治疗的重要手段,血流动力学稳定或经复苏稳定的患者均可列为候选对象;应适当扩大CT检查指征;观念更新很有必要。     

Nonoperative management for patients with grade IV blunt hepatic trauma

Introduction

The treatment of complex liver injuries remains a challenge. Nonoperative treatment for such injuries is increasingly being adopted as the initial management strategy. We reviewed our experience, at a University teaching hospital, in the nonoperative management of grade IV liver injuries with the intent to evaluate failure rates; need for angioembolization and blood transfusions; and in-hospital mortality and complications.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis conducted at a single large trauma centre in Brazil. All consecutive, hemodynamically stable, blunt trauma patients with grade IV hepatic injury, between 1996 and 2011, were analyzed. Demographics and baseline characteristics were recorded. Failure of nonoperative management was defined by the need for surgical intervention. Need for angioembolization and transfusions, in-hospital death, and complications were also assessed

Results

Eighteen patients with grade IV hepatic injury treated nonoperatively during the study period were included. The nonoperative treatment failed in only one patient (5.5%) who had refractory abdominal pain. However, no missed injuries and/or worsening of bleeding were observed during the operation. None of the patients died nor need angioembolization. No complications directly related to the liver were observed. Unrelated complications to the liver occurred in three patients (16.7%); one patient developed a tracheal stenosis (secondary to tracheal intubation); one had pleural effusion; and one developed an abscess in the pleural cavity. The hospital length of stay was on average 11.56 days.

Conclusions

In our experience, nonoperative management of grade IV liver injury for stable blunt trauma patients is associated with high success rates without significant complications.

     

Complications of nonoperative management of high-grade blunt hepatic injuries

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries is highly successful. Complications associated with high-grade injuries, however, have not been well characterized. The purpose of the present study was therefore to define hepatic-related complications and associated treatment modalities in patients undergoing nonoperative management of high-grade blunt hepatic injuries. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-seven patients from two regional Level I trauma centers with grade 3 to 5 blunt hepatic injuries during a 40-month period were reviewed. Complications and treatment of hepatic-related complications in patients not requiring laparotomy in the first 24 hours were identified. RESULTS: Of 337 patients with a grade 3 to 5 injury, 230 (68%) were managed nonoperatively. There were 37 hepatic-related complications in 25 patients (11%); 63% (5 of 8) of patients with grade 5 injuries developed complications, 21% (19 of 92) of patients with grade 4 injuries, but only 1% (1 of 130) of patients with grade 3 injuries. Complications included bleeding in 13 patients managed by angioembolization (n = 12) and laparotomy (n = 1), liver abscesses in 2 patients managed with computed tomography-guided drainage (n = 2) and subsequent laparotomy (n = 1). In one patient with bleeding, hepatic necrosis followed surgical ligation of the right hepatic artery and required delayed hepatic lobectomy. Sixteen biliary complications were managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and stenting (n = 7), drainage (n = 5), and laparoscopy (n = 4). Three patients had suspected abdominal sepsis and underwent a negative laparotomy, whereas an additional three patients underwent laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative management of high-grade liver injuries can be safely accomplished. Mortality is low; however, complications in grade 4 and 5 injuries should be anticipated and may require a combination of operative and nonoperative management strategies.     

Blunt hepatic injury: a paradigm shift from operative to nonoperative management in the 1990s

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcome of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injury managed nonoperatively, and to examine the impact of this approach on the outcome of all patients with blunt hepatic injury. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Until recently, operative management has been the standard for liver injury. A prospective trial from the authors' institution had shown that nonoperative management could safely be applied to hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injury. The present study reviewed the authors' institutional experience with blunt hepatic trauma since that trial and compared the results with prior institutional experience. METHODS: Six hundred sixty-one patients with blunt hepatic trauma during the 5-year period ending December 1998 were reviewed (NONOP2). The outcomes were compared with two previous studies from this institution: operative 1985 to 1990 (OP) and nonoperative 1993 to 1994 (NONOP1). RESULTS: All 168 OP patients were managed operatively. Twenty-four (18%) of 136 NONOP1 patients and 101 (15%) of the 661 NONOP2 patients required immediate exploration for hemodynamic instability. Forty-two (7%) patients failed nonoperative management; 20 were liver-related. Liver-related failures of nonoperative management were associated with higher-grade injuries and with larger amounts of hemoperitoneum on computed tomography scanning. Twenty-four-hour transfusions, abdominal infections, and hospital length of stay were all significantly lower in the NONOP1 and NONOP2 groups versus the OP cohort. The liver-related death rate was constant at 4% in the three cohorts over the three time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Although urgent surgery continues to be the standard for hemodynamically compromised patients with blunt hepatic trauma, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of hemodynamically stable patients. Approximately 85% of all patients with blunt hepatic trauma are stable. In this group, nonoperative management significantly improves outcomes over operative management in terms of decreased abdominal infections, decreased transfusions, and decreased lengths of hospital stay.     

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。     

Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in adults

Although well accepted in pediatric patients, nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in adults remains controversial. From January 1981 through May 1987, 66 adults were identified with blunt hepatic trauma that had been confirmed by abdominal exploration or abdominal computed tomography (CT): 46 underwent immediate operation, and 20 were initially managed nonoperatively. Patients were considered for nonoperative management only if they were hemodynamically stable and had no significant peritoneal irritation. CT criteria for nonoperative management included contained subcapsular or intrahepatic hematoma, unilobar fracture, absence of devitalized liver, minimal intraperitoneal blood, and absence of other significant intra-abdominal organ injuries. The predominant CT pattern in the 17 patients successfully managed nonoperatively included unilobar right-lobe fracture or intrahepatic hematoma. A small amount of blood in either gutter or in the pelvis did not portend failure of nonoperative management. No delayed complications were noted during an average follow-up of 27 months. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury based on abdominal CT findings is a useful alternative in a select group of hemodynamically stable patients.