These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Management of penetrating pancreatic trauma: an 11-year experience of a level-1 trauma center. Author: Vasquez JC, Coimbra R, Hoyt DB, Fortlage D. Journal: Injury; 2001 Dec; 32(10):753-9. PubMed ID: 11754881. Abstract: INTRODUCTION: We present our experience in the management of penetrating pancreatic injuries, focusing on factors related to complications and death. METHODS: Retrospective trauma registry-based analysis of 62 consecutive patients with penetrating pancreatic injuries during an 11-year period. Overall injury severity was assessed by the injury severity score (ISS) and the penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI). Pancreatic injuries were graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scaling (OIS). Complications were characterised using standardised definitions. Mortality was recorded as early (within 48 h after admission) and late (after 48 h). RESULTS: Thirty patients suffered gunshot wounds and 24 had grade I pancreatic injuries. Shotgun and gunshot wounds were more destructive than stab wounds (higher PATI, number of intraabdominal injuries and mortality). Seventeen patients died. Most deaths occurred within 1 h after admission due to massive bleeding and severe associated injuries. Only one death was potentially related to the pancreatic injury. Mortality rate also correlated with pancreatic injury grading. Sixty-one patients had associated intraabdominal injuries. Combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries were present in 13 patients, and five died. Simple drainage was the most common procedure performed. Pancreas-related complications were found in 12 out of 47 patients who survived more than 48 h; intraabdominal abscess (n=7) that was associated with colon injuries, and pancreatic fistula (n=5). CONCLUSION: An approach based on injury grade and location is advised. Routine drainage is recommended; distal resection is indicated in the presence of main duct injury, and the management of severe injuries will be tailored according to the overall physiologic status, presence of associated injuries, and duodenal viability. Morbidity and mortality is mainly due to associated injuries.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]