Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3

Künt karın travması: Tanı yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve cerrahi sonuçlar

Blunt abdominal trauma: evaluation of diagnostic options and surgical outcomes

Pages
205–210
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall mortality rate for all patients was 16%, and the postoperative mortality rate with respect to the operated patients was 14.3%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: In the present study, it is intended to outline the diagnostic tests and their influences on decisions of the surgeon about patients presented with blunt abdominal trauma.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: One hundred forty-four patients (98 males, 46 females; mean age 36; range 17 to 84 years) admitted to Gazi Universty School of Medicine due to blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) between May 2003-May 2005 were reviewed retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall mortality rate for all patients was 16%, and the postoperative mortality rate with respect to the operated patients was 14.3%.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Batın yaralanmaları · Düşme kazaları · Kazalar

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the present study, it is intended to outline the diagnostic tests and their influences on decisions of the surgeon about patients presented with blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: One hundred forty-four patients (98 males, 46 females; mean age 36; range 17 to 84 years) admitted to Gazi Universty School of Medicine due to blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) between May 2003-May 2005 were reviewed retrospectively. Age, gender, injury mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, revised trauma score, follow-up period, applied diagnostic procedures, and treatment methods were evaluated. RESULTS: The underlying cause was traffic accident in 126 (87.5%) patients, fall from height in 14 (9.7%) patients, and blows in 4 (2.8%) patients. Isolated abdominal trauma was seen in 21 patients and multisystem trauma in 123 patients. The most frequent associated trauma was head injury (66.6%). Abdominal ultrasonography (USG) was applied in 139 (97%) of the patients, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) was performed in 73 (51%). Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) was applied in 41 (28%) patients, and 15 (37%) of them proved to be positive. While emergency laparotomy was applied in 19 (13.2%) of the patients, 21 hemodynamically stable patients were diagnosed to have free fluid through USG and CT and were followed-up. During the follow-up period, 2 patients were scheduled to be operated, and small intestine perforation was found in these patients. The overall mortality rate for all patients was 16%, and the postoperative mortality rate with respect to the operated patients was 14.3%. CONCLUSION: If USG, CT, and DPL are applied in a complementary manner, a large number of patients with solid organ injuries secondary to blunt trauma can be managed nonoperatively. Thus, unnecessary laparotomies can be avoided and related morbidities and mortalities decreased.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada künt karın travması (KKT) ile başvuran hastalarda uygulanan tanısal testlerin ortaya konulması ve bunların cerrahın kararları üzerine olan etkilerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. GEREÇ-YÖNTEM: GÜTF'ne Mayıs 2003-Mayıs 2005 tarihleri arasında KKT nedeniyle başvuran 144 hasta retrospektif olarak incelendi.Hastalar yaş, cinsiyet, yaralanma mekanizması, Glasgow koma skalası,revise edilmiş travma skoru,izlem periodu, uygulanan tanısal testler ve tedavi yöntemleri açısından değerlendirildi. BULGULAR: Hastaların 98’i erkek ve 46’sı kadın olup ortalama yaşları 36yaş(17-84yaş) olarak bulundu. Travma nedeni 126(% 87.5)hastada trafik kazası,14(%9.7) hastada yüksekten düşme,4(%2.8) hastada ise darp olarak tesbit edildi.Hastaların 21’inde izole karın travması, 123’ünde ise çoklu sistem travması mevcuttu.Hastaların 139’una(%97) abdominal ultrasonografi ve 73’üne(%51) abdominal tomografi uygulandı. Diagnostik peritoneal lavaj (DPL) 41(%28.4) hastaya yapıldı ve 15’inde(%37) pozitif olarak değerlendirildi. 19 hastaya(%13.2) acil laparatomi yapılırken;abdominal ultrasonogrofi ve tomografide serbest sıvı bulunan ve hemodinamik olarak stabil olan 21 hasta takibe alındı.Bu hastalardan 2’sine takip esnasında laparatomi kararı alındı ve operasyonda intestinal perforasyon saptandı. Genel mortalite %16,cerrahi uygulanan vakalarda ise mortalite %14.3 olarak bulundu. SONUÇ: Ultrasonografi,abdominal tomografi ve DPL birbirinin alternatifi olan tetkikler olarak görülmemelidir.Bu tetkikler bir bütünün tamamlayıcıları olarak kullanıldığında, künt karın travmasına sekonder solid organ yaralanması olan bir çok hasta opere edilmeksizin izlenebilecektir. Böylece gereksiz laparotomiler ve bunların neden olacağı mortalite ve morbiditeler önlenmiş olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAMERCAN, A., YILMAZ, T. U., KARAMERCAN, M. A., AYTAÇ, A. B. (2008). Künt karın travması: Tanı yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve cerrahi sonuçlar. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3, 205–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/324786

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Sauaia A, Moore FA, Moore EE, Moser KS, Brennan R, Read RA, et al. Epidemiology of trauma deaths: a reassessment. J Trauma 1995;38:185-93
  2. Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE. Trauma. In: Brunucardi FC, editor. Principles of surgery. Vol. 2, New York: McGraw Hill; 2005. p. 129-87
  3. Hoyt DB, Coimbra R, Potenza B. Management of acute trauma. Sabiston Textbook of Surg e r y. 17th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2004. p. 483-531
  4. Soundappan SV, Holland AJ, Cass DT, Lam A. Diagnostic accuracy of surgeon-performed focused abdominal sonography (FAST) in blunt paediatric trauma.Injury 2005;36:970-5
  5. Hughes TM, Elton C, Hitos K, Perez JV, McDougall PA. Intra-abdominal gastrointestinal tract injuries following blunt trauma: the experience of an Australian trauma centre. Injury 2002;33:617-26
  6. McAnena OJ, Moore EE, Marx JA. Initial evaluation of the patient with blunt abdominal trauma. Surg Clin North Am 1990;70:495-515
  7. Smith J, Caldwell E, D’Amours S, Jalaludin B, Sugrue M. Abdominal trauma: a disease in evolution. ANZ J Surg 2005;75:790-4
  8. Canturk NZ, Utkan NZ, Y›ld›r›r C, Icli F, Dulger. The prognostic factors in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. [Article in Turkish] Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 1996;2:136-40
  9. Frick EJ Jr, Pasquale MD, Cipolle MD. Small-bowel and mesentery injuries in blunt trauma. J Trauma 1999;46:920-6
  10. Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, Shackford SR, Malangoni MA, Champion HR. Organ injury scaling: spleen and liver (1994 revision). J Trauma 1995;38:323-4
  11. Schurink GW, Bode PJ, van Luijt PA, van Vugt AB. The value of physical examination in the diagnosis of patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a retrospective study.Injury 1997;28:261-5
  12. Srikant M, Prashad PS, RamMohan RKJ, Balakrishna B. Options in the management of solid visceral injuries from blunt abdominal trauma. Indian J Surg 2003;65:263-68
  13. Bulinski P, Bachulis B, Naylor DF Jr, Kam D, Carey M, Dean RE. The changing face of trauma management and its impact on surgical resident training. J Trauma 2003;54:161-3
  14. Knudson MM, Maull KI. Nonoperative management of solid organ injuries. Past, present, and future. Surg Clin North Am 1999;79:1357-71
  15. Ng AK, Simons RK, Torreggiani WC, Ho SG, Kirkpatrick AW, Brown DR. Intra-abdominal free fluid without solid organ injury in blunt abdominal trauma: an indication for laparotomy. J Trauma 2002;52:1134-40
  16. Ekiz F, Yücel T, Emergen I, Gürdal SO, Gönüllü D, Yankol Y. The comparison of the results o