...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of trauma >Blunt aortic injury with concomitant intra-abdominal solid organ injury: treatment priorities revisited.
【24h】

Blunt aortic injury with concomitant intra-abdominal solid organ injury: treatment priorities revisited.

机译:钝性主动脉损伤并伴有腹腔内实体器官损伤:重新考虑治疗的优先次序。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Patients with blunt aortic injury (BAI) often have concomitant liver or spleen (L/S) injuries. With increasing use of cardiopulmonary bypass with heparinization in repair of BAI, many advocate operative management of the L/S injury before aortic repair to eliminate risk of hemorrhage. We evaluated the safety of nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt L/S injuries in patients undergoing acute BAI repair with bypass. METHODS: All patients admitted over a 6-year period with BAI were identified from the registry of our Level I trauma center. Patients with isolated L/S injuries without BAI admitted over the same period served as controls. Groups were compared with regard to demographics, injury characteristics, hospital course, and mortality. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were diagnosed with BAI from 1994 to 2000; 28 (33%) also had blunt abdominal trauma. Three patients with severe brain injury did not undergo BAI repair, and five required laparotomy before BAI repair for other intra-abdominal injuries (two for hemodynamic instability with splenic injury, and three for concomitant bowel injury). Therefore, 20 of 28 (71.4%) BAI patients with grade I or II L/S injury (Aorta L/S group) underwent planned NOM. All BAIs were repaired using partial bypass with full heparinization. These 20 patients are compared with 894 patients with grade I or II L/S injuries with no BAI (L/S group) over the same time period. There was no difference in the nonoperative failure rate of the Aorta L/S group versus the L/S group (0% vs. 1.7%). Both groups had similar complication rates. The Aorta L/S group was also compared with 56 BAIs without solid organ injury (Aorta group). Although the Aorta L/S group was more severely injured than the Aorta group (Injury Severity Score of 35.3 vs. 26.8, < 0.0001), transfusion rates (5.7 U of packed red blood cells vs. 8.0 U of packed red blood cells, p = NS), hospital days (17.9 vs. 19.1, p = NS) and mortality (10% vs. 9%, p = NS) were similar. CONCLUSION: NOM of patients with grade I or II L/S injury who undergo systemic anticoagulation with heparin for repair of BAI is safe and associated with transfusion rates similar to BAI alone. Patients with low-grade liver or spleen injuries do not require laparotomy before BAI repair using partial bypass.
机译:背景:主动脉钝性损伤(BAI)患者常伴有肝脏或脾脏(L / S)损伤。随着越来越多的肝素化体外循环在修复BAI中的应用,许多人主张在主动脉修复之前对L / S损伤进行手术治疗,以消除出血风险。我们评估了经旁路急性BAI修复的患者的钝性L / S损伤的非手术治疗(NOM)的安全性。方法:从我一级创伤中心的登记处中识别出所有在6年内接受过BAI的患者。同期收治的无BAI的孤立L / S损伤患者作为对照组。比较了各组的人口统计学,损伤特征,医院病程和死亡率。结果:1994年至2000年,有84名患者被诊断出患有BAI。 28名(33%)的腹部受伤也很钝。 3例严重脑损伤患者未接受BAI修复,另外5例在其他腹部内损伤进行BAI修复之前需要进行剖腹手术(其中2例因脾脏损伤引起的血流动力学不稳定,另3例伴随肠损伤)。因此,在28例I / II级L / S损伤的BAI患者(主动脉L / S组)中,有20例(71.4%)接受了计划的NOM。使用完全肝素化的部分旁路修复所有BAI。将这20例患者与894例同期没有BAI的I或II级L / S损伤的患者(L / S组)进行比较。主动脉L / S组与L / S组的非手术失败率无差异(0%vs. 1.7%)。两组的并发症发生率相似。还比较了Aorta L / S组和56例无实​​体器官损伤的BAI(Aorta组)。尽管Aorta L / S组比Aorta组受更严重的伤害(严重程度评分为35.3 vs. 26.8,<0.0001),但输血率(5.7 U填充红细胞与8.0 U填充红细胞,p = NS),住院天数(17.9对19.1,p = NS)和死亡率(10%对9%,p = NS)相似。结论:接受肝素全身抗凝治疗BAI的I级或II级L / S损伤患者的NOM是安全的,并且与单独的BAI输血率相关。肝脏或脾脏轻度受损的患者在使用部分旁路进行BAI修复之前不需要开腹手术。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号