骨盆骨折患者腹膜外膀胱损伤的处理。

Virginia H Byars, Saskya E. Byerly, Caroline T Dong, Emily K Lenart, Cory R Evans, Andrew J. Kerwin, Dina M. Filiberto
{"title":"骨盆骨折患者腹膜外膀胱损伤的处理。","authors":"Virginia H Byars, Saskya E. Byerly, Caroline T Dong, Emily K Lenart, Cory R Evans, Andrew J. Kerwin, Dina M. Filiberto","doi":"10.1177/00031348241244641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThe management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries (EBIs) when present with concomitant pelvic fractures is controversial. Current evidence is divided between supporting non-operative management with catheter drainage compared to operative management of bladder injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of EBI in the setting of pelvic fractures at our institution. We hypothesize there is no difference between operative and non-operative groups.\n\n\nMETHODS\nRetrospective review of patients with concomitant bladder injuries and pelvic fractures at a level 1 trauma center from 2017 to 2022 was performed. Demographics, injury characteristics, management strategies, and complications were collected. Patients were stratified by management (cystorrhaphy vs non-operative) and compared.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf 90 patients with bladder injuries and pelvic fractures, 50 patients (56%) presented with EBI, 26 patients (29%) presented with only intraperitoneal injuries, and 14 patients (16%) presented with a combined injury. Of patients with EBI, 18 (36%) underwent cystorrhaphy and 32 (64%) underwent non-operative management. There was no difference in demographics, orthopedic pelvic operative intervention, length of stay, or mortality between groups. Patients in the operative cohort had more bladder leaks [7 (39%) vs 4 (13%), P = .0406], compared to those in the non-operative cohort. Composite complications [7 (39%) vs 7 (22%), P = .1984] were similar between groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPatients with EBI and pelvic fractures who underwent cystorrhaphy had more bladder leaks on follow-up imaging, although there was no difference in composite complications, when compared to those who underwent non-operative management.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"78 ","pages":"31348241244641"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of Extraperitoneal Bladder Injuries in Patients With Pelvic Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Virginia H Byars, Saskya E. Byerly, Caroline T Dong, Emily K Lenart, Cory R Evans, Andrew J. Kerwin, Dina M. Filiberto\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00031348241244641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThe management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries (EBIs) when present with concomitant pelvic fractures is controversial. Current evidence is divided between supporting non-operative management with catheter drainage compared to operative management of bladder injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of EBI in the setting of pelvic fractures at our institution. We hypothesize there is no difference between operative and non-operative groups.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nRetrospective review of patients with concomitant bladder injuries and pelvic fractures at a level 1 trauma center from 2017 to 2022 was performed. Demographics, injury characteristics, management strategies, and complications were collected. Patients were stratified by management (cystorrhaphy vs non-operative) and compared.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOf 90 patients with bladder injuries and pelvic fractures, 50 patients (56%) presented with EBI, 26 patients (29%) presented with only intraperitoneal injuries, and 14 patients (16%) presented with a combined injury. Of patients with EBI, 18 (36%) underwent cystorrhaphy and 32 (64%) underwent non-operative management. There was no difference in demographics, orthopedic pelvic operative intervention, length of stay, or mortality between groups. Patients in the operative cohort had more bladder leaks [7 (39%) vs 4 (13%), P = .0406], compared to those in the non-operative cohort. Composite complications [7 (39%) vs 7 (22%), P = .1984] were similar between groups.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nPatients with EBI and pelvic fractures who underwent cystorrhaphy had more bladder leaks on follow-up imaging, although there was no difference in composite complications, when compared to those who underwent non-operative management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Surgeon\",\"volume\":\"78 \",\"pages\":\"31348241244641\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Surgeon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241244641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241244641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景腹膜外膀胱损伤(EBI)如果同时伴有骨盆骨折,其处理方法尚存争议。与膀胱损伤的手术治疗相比,目前的证据支持导管引流的非手术治疗。本研究的目的是评估本院目前对骨盆骨折时 EBI 的处理方法。我们假设手术组和非手术组之间不存在差异。方法回顾性审查了 2017 年至 2022 年在一级创伤中心同时患有膀胱损伤和骨盆骨折的患者。收集了患者的人口统计学特征、损伤特征、处理策略和并发症。结果 在90名膀胱损伤和骨盆骨折患者中,50名患者(56%)出现EBI,26名患者(29%)仅出现腹膜内损伤,14名患者(16%)出现合并损伤。在 EBI 患者中,18 人(36%)接受了囊肿切除术,32 人(64%)接受了非手术治疗。两组患者在人口统计学、骨科骨盆手术干预、住院时间和死亡率方面均无差异。与非手术组相比,手术组患者的膀胱漏尿情况更严重[7(39%) vs 4(13%),P = .0406]。综合并发症[7 (39%) vs 7 (22%),P = .1984]组间相似。结论接受膀胱造影术的 EBI 和骨盆骨折患者在随访造影中出现的膀胱漏更多,但与接受非手术治疗的患者相比,综合并发症没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management of Extraperitoneal Bladder Injuries in Patients With Pelvic Fractures.
BACKGROUND The management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries (EBIs) when present with concomitant pelvic fractures is controversial. Current evidence is divided between supporting non-operative management with catheter drainage compared to operative management of bladder injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of EBI in the setting of pelvic fractures at our institution. We hypothesize there is no difference between operative and non-operative groups. METHODS Retrospective review of patients with concomitant bladder injuries and pelvic fractures at a level 1 trauma center from 2017 to 2022 was performed. Demographics, injury characteristics, management strategies, and complications were collected. Patients were stratified by management (cystorrhaphy vs non-operative) and compared. RESULTS Of 90 patients with bladder injuries and pelvic fractures, 50 patients (56%) presented with EBI, 26 patients (29%) presented with only intraperitoneal injuries, and 14 patients (16%) presented with a combined injury. Of patients with EBI, 18 (36%) underwent cystorrhaphy and 32 (64%) underwent non-operative management. There was no difference in demographics, orthopedic pelvic operative intervention, length of stay, or mortality between groups. Patients in the operative cohort had more bladder leaks [7 (39%) vs 4 (13%), P = .0406], compared to those in the non-operative cohort. Composite complications [7 (39%) vs 7 (22%), P = .1984] were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS Patients with EBI and pelvic fractures who underwent cystorrhaphy had more bladder leaks on follow-up imaging, although there was no difference in composite complications, when compared to those who underwent non-operative management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信