-
脾脏是腹腔脏器中最易受损的器官,在腹部闭合性损伤中,脾破裂占20%~40%,在腹部开放性损伤中,脾破裂占10%左右[1]。近年来对脾脏功能学的研究认为:在抢救生命的前提下,应该使用各种手术或非手术方法尽量保留脾脏[2]。目前对外伤性脾破裂进行保脾治疗主要有2种方法,即急诊选择性脾动脉栓塞术与外科手术[3]。为探讨介入性治疗对外伤性脾破裂病人的有效性及病人出血量的影响,本研究选取2015年3月至2020年3月在马鞍山市中心医院接受治疗的68例创伤性脾破裂出血病人的病例资料再次投入研究。现作报道。
-
2组手术时间无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组肛门排气时间、住院时间、术中出血量、住院费用及术后进食时间均明显少于对照组(P < 0.01)(见表 1)。
分组 n 手术时间/min 肛门排气时间/h 住院时间/d 术中出血量/mL 住院费用/万元 术后进食时间/d 观察组 34 121.59±6.98 8.48±1.21 7.12±1.05 53.29±7.94 3.22±0.51 1.42±0.31 对照组 34 120.32±6.95 12.42±2.69 9.85±1.69 194.12±8.81 4.09±0.63 3.09±0.59 t — 0.75 7.79* 8.00* 69.24 6.25 14.61* P — >0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 *示t′值 表 1 2组手术指标比较(x±s)
-
2组手术前VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);2组术后1、3、5、7 d VAS评分均明显低于术前(P < 0.01),且随着时间推移,VAS评分呈现递减趋势(P < 0.01);观察组术后1、3、5、7 d VAS评分均明显低于对照组(P < 0.01)(见表 2)。
分组 n 术前 术后1 d 3 d 5 d 7 d F P MS组内 观察组 34 6.39±0.26 4.31±0.18# 3.29±0.13#▼▼ 1.12±0.10#▼▲ 0.64±0.07#▼▲△ 7185.60 < 0.01 0.026 对照组 34 6.40±0.27 5.79±0.24# 4.77±0.22#▼ 3.27±0.18#▼▲ 2.10±0.12#▼▲△ 2 375.28 < 0.01 0.045 t — 0.16 28.77 33.77* 60.88* 61.27* — — — P — >0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 — — — 与术前比较#P < 0.01;与术后1 d比较▼P < 0.01;与术后3 d比较▲P < 0.01;与术后5 d比较△P < 0.01 表 2 2组VAS评分比较(x±s;分)
-
2组术前炎症因子、应激反应差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);2组术后5 d白细胞计数均低于术前(P < 0.01),CRP、Cor及EP水平均明显高于术前(P < 0.01);观察组术后5 d白细胞计数、CRP、Cor及EP水平均明显低于对照组(P < 0.01)(见表 3)。
分组 n 白细胞计数 CRP/(mg/L) Cor/(nmol/L) EP/(ng/mL) 手术前 观察组 34 18.41±4.53 14.39±7.34 168.71±12.98 114.34±9.87 对照组 34 18.63±4.28 14.40±7.36 169.83±13.12 115.29±9.96 t — 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.40 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 手术后5 d 观察组 34 9.24±1.45## 29.43±8.94## 345.98±17.56## 232.59±13.25## 对照组 34 12.64±4.23## 43.98±9.78## 584.52±15.45## 396.45±19.92## t — 4.43* 6.40 59.46 39.94* P — < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 组内配对t检验:##P < 0.01;*示t′值 表 3 2组炎症因子及应激反应比较(x±s)
-
2组手术前QOL评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);2组术后5 d QOL评分均高于术前(P < 0.05~P < 0.01);观察组术后5d PH、RP、BP、GH、VT、SF、RE及MH评分均明显高于对照组(P < 0.01)(见表 4)。
分组 n PH RH BP GH VT SF RE MH 手术前 观察组 34 65.79±4.33 69.57±6.41 66.51±5.46 69.41±6.39 70.32±6.41 71.26±6.45 73.31±6.09 70.79±6.32 对照组 34 65.80±4.34 70.11±6.43 67.67±5.48 70.12±6.41 71.46±6.43 70.49±6.32 72.59±6.04 71.24±6.35 t — 0.01 0.35 0.87 0.46 0.73 0.50 0.49 0.29 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 手术后5 d 观察组 34 87.49±6.64** 85.21±6.43** 89.45±6.67** 86.56±6.45** 87.12±6.62** 84.57±6.12** 86.74±6.51** 88.35±6.30** 对照组 34 73.25±5.61** 77.84±6.13** 78.45±6.54** 78.41±6.75** 75.49±6.51* 75.64±6.13* 79.45±6.12** 78.46±6.21** t — 9.55 4.84 6.87 5.09 7.30 6.01 4.76 6.52 P — < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 组内配对t检验:*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01 表 4 2组QOL评分比较(x±s;分)
介入性治疗对外伤性脾破裂的有效性及出血量的影响
Effect of interventional therapy on the effectiveness of traumatic splenic rupture and the amount of blood loss
-
摘要:
目的探讨介入性治疗对外伤性脾破裂病人的有效性及病人出血量的影响。 方法选择68例外伤性脾破裂病人作为研究对象,采取随机双盲方法分为对照组和观察组,各34例。对照组给予外科手术治疗,观察组给予选择性介入栓塞手术治疗,2组术后5 d对病人效果进行评估,术后对病人进行6个月随访。比较2组手术指标、视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分、炎症因子、生活质量。 结果无转开腹或者再手术发生;2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组肛门排气、住院时间、术中出血量、住院费用及术后进食时间均明显短(少)于对照组(P < 0.01);2组术后1、3、5、7 d VAS评分均明显低于手术前(P < 0.01);观察组术后1、3、5、7 d VAS评分均明显低于对照组(P < 0.01);2组术后5 d白细胞计数、C反应蛋白(CRP)、皮质醇(Cor)及肾上腺素(EP)水平均高于术前(P < 0.05);观察组术后5 d白细胞计数、CRP、Cor及EP水平均低于对照组(P < 0.01);2组术后5 d QOL评分均高于术前(P < 0.05~P < 0.01);观察组术后5 d生理机能、生理智能、躯体疼痛、一般健康状况、精力、社会功能、情感智能及精神健康评分均明显高于对照组(P < 0.01)。 结论介入性治疗用于外伤性脾破裂病人中,病人出血量较小,能减轻病人疼痛,降低炎症因子水平,有助于病人生活质量的提高,且该治疗方法安全性较高,能降低术后复发率,值得推广应用。 Abstract:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of interventional therapy in patients with traumatic splenic rupture and the effect of the amount of blood loss. MethodsA total of 68 patients with traumatic splenic rupture were selected as subjects, and randomly divided into the control group(n=34) and the observation group(n=34) using a double-blind randomized method.The control group received surgical treatment, while the observation group received selective interventional embolization.The effect of the two groups was evaluated at 5 days after operation, and the patients were followed up for 6 months after operation.Surgical indicators, VAS scores, inflammatory factors, and quality of life were compared between the two groups. ResultsNo laparotomy or reoperation occurred.There was no statistical significance in the operation time between the two groups(P>0.05).In the observation group, anal exhaust, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, hospital expenses and postoperative feeding time were shorter (less) than those in the control group(P < 0.01).Postoperative scores of 1, 3, 5 and 7 d VAS in both groups were lower than those before surgery (P < 0.01).Postoperative scores of 1, 3, 5 and 7 d VAS in the observation group were all lower than those in the control group(P < 0.01).White blood cell count, CRP, Cor and EP levels were higher in both groups at 5 d after operation than before(P < 0.05).The white blood cell count, CRP, Cor and EP levels in the observation group were all lower than those in the control group 5 days after operation(P < 0.01).The 5 d QOL score after operation was higher in both groups than before nursing(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The scores of 5 d PH, RP, BP, GH, VT, SF, RE and MH in the observation group were all higher than those in the control group(P < 0.01). ConclusionsInterventional therapy can reduce the amount of bleed loss in patients with traumatic splenic rupture, relieve the pain, reduce the level of inflammatory factors, and contribute to the improvement of patients' quality of life.Moreover, this treatment method is safe and can reduce the postoperative recurrence rate, which is worthy of popularization and application. -
Key words:
- traumatic splenic rupture /
- Interventional therapy /
- amount of blood loss
-
表 1 2组手术指标比较(x±s)
分组 n 手术时间/min 肛门排气时间/h 住院时间/d 术中出血量/mL 住院费用/万元 术后进食时间/d 观察组 34 121.59±6.98 8.48±1.21 7.12±1.05 53.29±7.94 3.22±0.51 1.42±0.31 对照组 34 120.32±6.95 12.42±2.69 9.85±1.69 194.12±8.81 4.09±0.63 3.09±0.59 t — 0.75 7.79* 8.00* 69.24 6.25 14.61* P — >0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 *示t′值 表 2 2组VAS评分比较(x±s;分)
分组 n 术前 术后1 d 3 d 5 d 7 d F P MS组内 观察组 34 6.39±0.26 4.31±0.18# 3.29±0.13#▼▼ 1.12±0.10#▼▲ 0.64±0.07#▼▲△ 7185.60 < 0.01 0.026 对照组 34 6.40±0.27 5.79±0.24# 4.77±0.22#▼ 3.27±0.18#▼▲ 2.10±0.12#▼▲△ 2 375.28 < 0.01 0.045 t — 0.16 28.77 33.77* 60.88* 61.27* — — — P — >0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 — — — 与术前比较#P < 0.01;与术后1 d比较▼P < 0.01;与术后3 d比较▲P < 0.01;与术后5 d比较△P < 0.01 表 3 2组炎症因子及应激反应比较(x±s)
分组 n 白细胞计数 CRP/(mg/L) Cor/(nmol/L) EP/(ng/mL) 手术前 观察组 34 18.41±4.53 14.39±7.34 168.71±12.98 114.34±9.87 对照组 34 18.63±4.28 14.40±7.36 169.83±13.12 115.29±9.96 t — 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.40 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 手术后5 d 观察组 34 9.24±1.45## 29.43±8.94## 345.98±17.56## 232.59±13.25## 对照组 34 12.64±4.23## 43.98±9.78## 584.52±15.45## 396.45±19.92## t — 4.43* 6.40 59.46 39.94* P — < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 组内配对t检验:##P < 0.01;*示t′值 表 4 2组QOL评分比较(x±s;分)
分组 n PH RH BP GH VT SF RE MH 手术前 观察组 34 65.79±4.33 69.57±6.41 66.51±5.46 69.41±6.39 70.32±6.41 71.26±6.45 73.31±6.09 70.79±6.32 对照组 34 65.80±4.34 70.11±6.43 67.67±5.48 70.12±6.41 71.46±6.43 70.49±6.32 72.59±6.04 71.24±6.35 t — 0.01 0.35 0.87 0.46 0.73 0.50 0.49 0.29 P — >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 手术后5 d 观察组 34 87.49±6.64** 85.21±6.43** 89.45±6.67** 86.56±6.45** 87.12±6.62** 84.57±6.12** 86.74±6.51** 88.35±6.30** 对照组 34 73.25±5.61** 77.84±6.13** 78.45±6.54** 78.41±6.75** 75.49±6.51* 75.64±6.13* 79.45±6.12** 78.46±6.21** t — 9.55 4.84 6.87 5.09 7.30 6.01 4.76 6.52 P — < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 组内配对t检验:*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01 -
[1] 卢骏, 夏婷, 李磊, 等. 脾动脉介入栓塞治疗外伤性脾破裂的临床效果及对患者免疫功能的影响[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2019, 17(10): 1937. [2] KONG LG, WANG DC, ZHENG XZ, et al. Clinical analysis of 63 cases undergoing laparoscopic splenectomy for splenic traumatic rupture by the ligation of splenic pedicle by snare[J]. Lingnan Modern Clinics in Surgery, 2018, 18(2): 175. [3] 段琨, 巩守平. 骨折合并闭合性腹部损伤延迟性脾破裂临床诊断和治疗[J]. 中国临床研究, 2018, 31(5): 640. [4] 聂泓宇, 杨明东. 外伤性脾破裂后行脾脏保留手术的疗效及术后血清免疫球蛋白、Tuftsin因子水平[J]. 中国临床研究, 2018, 17(8): 252. [5] ROSLING M, TRENKER C, NEESSE A, et al. Spontaneous and traumatic splenic rupture: retrospective clinical, B-mode and CEUS analysis in 62 patients[J]. Ultrasound Int Open, 2018, 4(1): E30. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-125311 [6] 陈剑伟, 潘凡, 陈永标, 等. 选择性肝动脉介入栓塞术治疗Ⅲ、Ⅳ级肝外伤的临床疗效[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(7): 907. [7] ARSHAD MF, JAVED N, KARIM SM, et al. Atraumatic splenic rupture after myocardial infarction[J]. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med, 2018, 5(4): 827. [8] 李后俊, 周正武, 刘晓林. 手术治疗与保守治疗创伤性脾破裂的临床效果比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 17(11): 196. [9] 高少科, 张云昌, 牛学瑞. 黄芪注射液对外伤性脾破裂行脾切除患者外周血T淋巴细胞亚群的影响[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2018, 27(4): 409. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2018.04.021 [10] 马建中, 张宇, 韩圣瑾, 等. 脾全切除术与脾部分切除术治疗外伤性脾破裂的临床疗效对比[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2017, 17(24): 4706. [11] CHINAKA UC, FULTANG J, PERECA J, et al. Atraumatic idiopathic splenic rupture induced by granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF) for the treatment of pancytopenia, managed successfully by laparoscopic splenectomy[J]. BMJ Case Reports, 2020, 13(4): e232411. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-232411 [12] 范瑞芳, 肖毅, 许树林, 等. 腹腔镜脾切除术联合术中自体输血治疗外伤性脾破裂的疗效研究[J]. 西北国防医学杂志, 2017, 16(11): 26. [13] 贾守洪, 鲁旭, 毛熙贤, 等. 腹腔镜脾切除术联合自体血回输治疗外伤性脾破裂的临床体会[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2019, 24(8): 574. [14] 周晓华, 田由京, 李合. 脾修补术、部分切除术及动脉栓塞术治疗创伤性脾破裂的疗效以及对患者免疫功能的影响[J]. 创伤外科杂志, 2020, 20(3): 175.