Objective: To improve diagnosis and therapeutic efficacy for pancreatic trauma. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 71 cases of pancreatic injuries received in our department from 1987 to 2004. Different surgical pro...Objective: To improve diagnosis and therapeutic efficacy for pancreatic trauma. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 71 cases of pancreatic injuries received in our department from 1987 to 2004. Different surgical procedures were performed according to different patterns of pancreatic injuries. Among them, 31 cases were defined as Grade I or II injury according to the pancreatic organ injury score developed by American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and were performed pancreas debridement and drainage; 26 cases belonged to Grade III injury and were performed distal pancreatectomy plus external drainage; 10 cases of Grade IV injury in whom 8 were performed distal Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy and 2 were performed Whipple operation; 4 cases of Grade V injury in whom 1 was performed restoration of duodenal damage, suture of proximal pancreatic laceration and distal Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy, and 3 were performed Whipple operation. Results: Sixty-six cases were cured, of whom 14 had postoperative complications, and 5 cases died. The causes of death were of pancreatic fistula in 2 cases, upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 1 case, ARDS in 1 case, and serious abdominal infection in 1 case. Conclusions: Preoperative diagnosis for pancreatic trauma is rather challenging. Prompt explorative laparotomy is still a reliable diagnostic method for pancreatic trauma. In order to improve curative rate, different surgical procedures should be undertaken according to different sites and grades of pancreatic traumas.展开更多
文摘Objective: To improve diagnosis and therapeutic efficacy for pancreatic trauma. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 71 cases of pancreatic injuries received in our department from 1987 to 2004. Different surgical procedures were performed according to different patterns of pancreatic injuries. Among them, 31 cases were defined as Grade I or II injury according to the pancreatic organ injury score developed by American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and were performed pancreas debridement and drainage; 26 cases belonged to Grade III injury and were performed distal pancreatectomy plus external drainage; 10 cases of Grade IV injury in whom 8 were performed distal Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy and 2 were performed Whipple operation; 4 cases of Grade V injury in whom 1 was performed restoration of duodenal damage, suture of proximal pancreatic laceration and distal Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy, and 3 were performed Whipple operation. Results: Sixty-six cases were cured, of whom 14 had postoperative complications, and 5 cases died. The causes of death were of pancreatic fistula in 2 cases, upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 1 case, ARDS in 1 case, and serious abdominal infection in 1 case. Conclusions: Preoperative diagnosis for pancreatic trauma is rather challenging. Prompt explorative laparotomy is still a reliable diagnostic method for pancreatic trauma. In order to improve curative rate, different surgical procedures should be undertaken according to different sites and grades of pancreatic traumas.
