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: The epidemiology of and outcome from pancreatoduodenal trauma in the UK, 1989-2013.
    Author: O'Reilly DA, Bouamra O, Kausar A, Malde DJ, Dickson EJ, Lecky F.
    Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Mar; 97(2):125-30. PubMed ID: 25723689.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Pancreatoduodenal (PD) injury is an uncommon but serious complication of blunt and penetrating trauma, associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, mechanisms of injury, initial operation rates and outcome of patients who sustained PD trauma in the UK from a large trauma registry, over the period 1989-2013. METHODS: The Trauma Audit and Research Network database was searched for details of any patient with blunt or penetrating trauma to the pancreas, duodenum or both. RESULTS: Of 356,534 trauma cases, 1,155 (0.32%) sustained PD trauma. The median patient age was 27 years for blunt trauma and 27.5 years for penetrating trauma. The male-to-female ratio was 2.5:1. Blunt trauma was the most common type of injury seen, with a ratio of blunt-to-penetrating PD injury ratio of 3.6:1. Road traffic collision was the most common mechanism of injury, accounting for 673 cases (58.3%). The median injury severity score (ISS) was 25 (IQR: 14-35) for blunt trauma and 14 (IQR: 9-18) for penetrating trauma. The mortality rate for blunt PD trauma was 17.6%; it was 12.2% for penetrating PD trauma. Variables predicting mortality after pancreatic trauma were increasing age, ISS, haemodynamic compromise and not having undergone an operation. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated pancreatic injuries are uncommon; most coexist with other injuries. In the UK, a high proportion of cases are due to blunt trauma, which differs from US and South African series. Mortality is high in the UK but comparison with other surgical series is difficult because of selection bias in their datasets.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]