Annales de chirurgie · 2001
[Isolated pancreatic neck rupture].
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dubois J, Porcheron J, Lacroix M, Menaoui N
Аннотация
AIM OF THE STUDY: Through four cases of pancreatic neck rupture, the study aim was to emphasize the advantages of an early laparotomy when there is a doubt about a canal disruption and the risks of a later surgical management.
PATIENTS AND RESULTS: Four patients were operated on for a neck disruption of the pancreas due to blunt trauma. Two patients underwent laparotomy in the first 48 hours after a radiological exploration and underwent a left pancreatectomy with spleen preservation. There were no associated injuries, no lesions of acute pancreatitis. The two other patients were, at first, medically treated and developed an acute pancreatitis with pseudocyst. They underwent laparotomy, 7 and 10 days after the trauma because of pain and hyperthermia, and a conservative treatment by cystojejunostomy was performed in difficult conditions because of the acute pancreatitis. A late pancreatic pseudocyst (4 and 6 months) occurred in two patients.
CONCLUSION: When pancreatic trauma occurs, an exploration with echography, scanner, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography can suggest a neck disruption and a canal rupture. When the canal is safe, a drainage close to the pancreas is sufficient. When the rupture of the canal is suspected or proved, an early laparotomy is necessary in order to investigate the pancreas and to perform the appropriate procedure. This surgery is easier before the occurrence of pseudocyst and acute pancreatitis.
PATIENTS AND RESULTS: Four patients were operated on for a neck disruption of the pancreas due to blunt trauma. Two patients underwent laparotomy in the first 48 hours after a radiological exploration and underwent a left pancreatectomy with spleen preservation. There were no associated injuries, no lesions of acute pancreatitis. The two other patients were, at first, medically treated and developed an acute pancreatitis with pseudocyst. They underwent laparotomy, 7 and 10 days after the trauma because of pain and hyperthermia, and a conservative treatment by cystojejunostomy was performed in difficult conditions because of the acute pancreatitis. A late pancreatic pseudocyst (4 and 6 months) occurred in two patients.
CONCLUSION: When pancreatic trauma occurs, an exploration with echography, scanner, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography can suggest a neck disruption and a canal rupture. When the canal is safe, a drainage close to the pancreas is sufficient. When the rupture of the canal is suspected or proved, an early laparotomy is necessary in order to investigate the pancreas and to perform the appropriate procedure. This surgery is easier before the occurrence of pseudocyst and acute pancreatitis.