Tompa pancreastrauma diagnózisa és kezelése = Diagnosis and management of blunt pancreatic trauma
2018
Absztrakt: A torzo szerveinek seruleseiről, ezek kezeleseről mostanra kiterjedt irodalom es
letisztult protokollok allnak rendelkezesre. A hasnyalmirigy ez alol kivetelt
kepez. A pancreas tompa vagy athatolo serulesei meglehetősen ritkak, reszben
emiatt ez idaig nem szuletett a temaban magas szintű evidencian alapulo kezelesi
ajanlas. Attekintest adunk az utobbi evtizedek relevans kozlemenyeinek
kovetkezteteseiről mind a felnőttkori, mind a gyermekkori pancreasserulesek
kapcsan. Rendszerezzuk az eddigi osztalyozasokat es ezek megbizhatosagat. A
konzervativ vagy operativ kezelesi terv adekvat felallitasahoz alkalmazott
klasszifikaciokat sorra vesszuk a betegvizsgalattol a diagnosztikai leleteken at
a szovődmenyekig. A pancreasserulesek kezelesi elvei egyelőre nem alapulnak sem
prospektiv, sem randomizalt vizsgalatokon. A fellelhető tanulmanyok csak
retrospektiv, alacsony esetszamu betegcsoportokat dolgoznak fel, vagy
esetismertetesek, illetve ezek attekintesei (4. vagy 5. szintű evidencia). Ennek
ellenere konszenzus alakult ki arrol, hogy a Wirsung-vezetek erintettsegen
mulik, hogy alacsony vagy magas rizikoju serulesről van-e szo; a klasszifikaciok
is ezt a logikat kovetik. Intakt fő pancreasvezetek eseten stabil betegnel
konzervativ kezeles javasolt. Amennyiben ductusserules kimutathato,
felnőttkorban javasolt a perkutan, endoszkopos vagy laparotomias megkozelites
ennek ellatasara. A gyermekkori serulesek kezeleseről sokkal ellentmondasosabb
ajanlasok lattak napvilagot. Szamos erv hozhato fel a nem operativ es az
operativ kezeles oldalan es ellene is, ennek feloldasa meg varat magara. Orv
Hetil. 2018; 159(2): 43–52.
| Abstract: The management of thoracic and abdominal organ injuries has very thorough and
extensive literature, including evidence-based protocols. Pancreatic trauma
stands as an exception. Blunt or penetrating trauma of the pancreas is rather
rare (less than 2% of all trauma cases, approximately 3–12% of all abdominal
trauma), leading to the lack of high-level evidences regarding its treatment.
Damage of the pancreas parenchyma can cause substantial morbidity and mortality,
therefore it is essential to separate cases where conservative treatment
suffices from those that need surgical approach. This study aims to review the
conclusions of relevant articles of the past decades concerning the management
of both adult and childhood pancreatic trauma. Classifications and their
reliability are revised. We enlist scaling systems that can help in making
decision whether to operate or to treat conservatively, from physical
examination to diagnostic measures and complications. To date, the treatment
principles of pancreatic trauma are not based either on prospective or on
randomised trials. The database search of studies retrieved only retrospective
and/or small case cohorts, case reports and expert opinions (levels 4 and 5 of
evidence). However, it is a generally accepted conviction that the damage of the
main pancreatic duct determines if the pancreatic injury is of low or high
grade. Available classifications are based on the same principle. Conservative
treatment is feasible given that the patient is hemodinamically stable and the
pancreatic duct is unimpaired. If duct lesion is discovered, adult cases are to
be treated with minimally invasive (percutaneous or endoscopic) measures or
surgically (including reconstruction, resection and drainage). The management of
childhood injuries has controversial literature. Many arguments can be
enumerated on the operative as also on the non-operative approach, this
confusion is to be clarified in the future. The highest morbidity rates are
derived from the late diagnosis of the pancreatic duct, while increased
mortality is seen in the polytrauma patient groups. Levels 1–2 evidence-based
recommendations are needed, but planning of strong trials is critically limited
due to the small number of cases and the heterogeneity of the relevant patient
groups. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(2): 43–52.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
0
References
0
Citations
NaN
KQI