The Study of Operative Indications of Blunt Hepatic Trauma.
- Author:
Nam Jun LEE
1
;
Dong Eun PARK
;
Hwan Bong LEE
;
Jung Taeck OH
;
Byung Jun SO
;
Kwon Mook CHAE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Blunt hepatic injury;
Operative management;
Nonoperative management
- MeSH:
Blood Pressure;
Blood Transfusion;
Hemodynamics;
Hemoperitoneum;
Humans;
Injury Severity Score;
Intensive Care Units;
Liver;
Peritoneal Cavity;
Resuscitation;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of the Korean Surgical Society
2000;59(6):800-809
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Nonoperative management is currently considered a treatment modality in 50 to 80% of patients with blunt liver injury. Nevertheless 10 to 50% of patients need operative management, and the criteria for operative management have not established. The purpose of this study is to find criteria for operative management of patients with blunt liver injury. METHODS: The records of 117 patients who experienced blunt hepatic injury from January 1992 to April 1999 were reviewed retrospectively with respect to hemodynamic stability, transfusion requirement, injury severity score, liver injury grade, amount of blood in the peritoneal cavity, and pooling of contrast material on computerized tomography (CT). RESULTS: Among the 117 patients, 29 patients (25%) were treated operatively (Group 1) and 88 patients (75%) were treated nonoperatively (Group 2). The initial systolic blood pressure in Group 1 was significantly lower than that of Group 2 (74.4+/-30.3 mmHg vs 107.1+/-27.2 mmHg, p<0.001). The amounts of transfusion for hemodynamic stability were 2.1 units in Group 1 and 0.4 units in Group 2 (p<0.001). The injury Severity score of Group 1 was significantly higher than that of Group 2 (20.8 +/- 11.0 vs 10.7+/-6.8, p=0.03). The mean injury grade was 3.7+/-0.1 for Group 1 and 2.4+/-1.0 for Group 2, which was a statistically significant difference was seen (p<0.001). The amount of hemoperitoneum in Group 1 was significantly higher than that of Group 2 (p<0.001). The pooling of contrast material on CT was detected in 3 cases in Group 1. CONCLUSION: We can establish the following criteria for operative management: operative management is necessary for hemodynamic instability during resusci tation, positive peritoneal irritation signs, and presence of pooling of contrast material on CT. In cases above grade IV, above 500 mL of hemoperitoneum on CT, or above 2 units of blood transfusion during resuscitation, close observation in an intensive care unit is necessary. If abnormality develops during observation, prompt operative management is mandatory.
