PACKING IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF SEVERE LIVER DAMAGE

PACKING IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF SEVERE LIVER DAMAGE

Shapkin Yu.G., Chalyk Yu.V., Stekolnikov N.Yu., Kuzyaev T.R.

Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, Saratov, Russia

One of the main causes of deaths in working-age population is multiple or concomitant abdominal injury, with mortality of 50-74 % [1-4]. Among traumatic injuries to abdominal organs, the liver injury takes one of the main places owing to features of anatomic location and structure of parenchyma [5]. According to severity, diagnosis difficulties, treatment strategies, and high incidence of complications, traumatic injuries to the liver are of the most problematic among all injuries to abdominal organs [3, 6, 7].
Severe liver injuries are accompanied by massive blood loss, coagulopathy and hemorrhagic shock events. The mortality reaches 100 % [4], which is determined by severity of liver injury, as well as by presence of severe concurrent injuries [3]. In the end of 20th century, the damage control concept was developed by the scientists of Hannover High Medical School [8]. It means programmed and staged surgical strategies. According to this concept, the primary surgical intervention should be conducted in minimally invasive and life-threatening volume, including temporary hemostasis with liver packing, and with subsequent relaparotomy for final hemostasis [9]. This technique is used for patients with severe liver injury, with unstable hemodynamics, and in case of insufficient surgical experience, according to some authors [8, 10].

Objective – to conduct the analysis of the results of the clinical use of gauze packing in the framework of the damage control concept in patients with severe liver damages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis included 248 patients with closed liver injuries operated in Koshelev City Clinical Hospital No.6 at the department of general surgery, Razumovsky Saratov State Medical University, in 1976-2018.
The study was conducted in compliance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2013, and the Rules for Clinical Practice in the Russian Federation (the Order by Health Ministry of Russia, June, 19, 2003, No. 266).
The great number of patients (74 %) were at the most working age (20-50 years). There were 75 % (186 patients) of men and 25 % (62 patients) women. The table 1 shows the distribution of patients according to age and gender.

Table 1. Gender and age of patients with liver injury

Men

Women

< 20

23

12

21-50

143

40

older than 50

20

10

Total

186

62


The indications for urgent laparotomy were clinical and laboratory signs of intraabdominal bleeding, data of laparocentesis (laparoscopy), ultrasonic examination and computer imaging of abdominal cavity.
Organ Injury Scale (OIS), developed by E. Moore in 1986, was used for estimation of severity of closed injuries to the liver. For severe injuries to the liver (degrees 4-5), they were of multiple or concomitant pattern. Injury Severity Score (ISS) was also used. There were only three patients with polytrauma and the liver injury of degree 5 in our study since this category of patients demonstrate high mortality at the presurgical stage.
The table 2 shows the distribution of patients with closed injuries to the liver according to E. Moore.

Table 2. Severity of injuries according to E. Moore

Injury degree

I-II

III

IV-V

Amount of patients

151

29

68

Total

248

The final digital materials were analyzed with MedCalc. v.12.1. χ2-test and Mann-Whitney test were used. The differences were statistically significant with p < 0.05.  

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of distribution of treatment outcomes of patients with closed hepatic injuries of degrees 4-5 included three periods: I - 1976-1992; II - 1993-2008; III - 2009-2018. We think that comparison of these periods is possible since, despite of advances in anesthesiology and critical care medicine in the periods 2-3, the period 1 included massive hemotransfusion (autohemotransfusion, direct blood transfusion), which is the main method for shock correction according to some authors (Samokhvalov I.M., Afonchikov V.S., Badalov V.I., Borisov M.B., et al.). In all periods, hepatic injuries were dominating according to ISS (the table 3).
The table 3 shows the absence of statistically significant differences in ISS for all periods.

Table 3. Mean value of ISS in patients in various time intervals

Periods

period I

period II

period III

Total mean score

38.75*

38.9*

38.95*

Traumatic brain injury

5.25

5.33

5.32

Spinal fractures

0

0

0

Chest injury

5.13

5.16

5.14

Abdominal injury

25

25

25

Locomotor system injury

2.06

2

2.07

Pelvic fractures

1.31

1.41

1.42

Note: * – p > 0.05.

The table 4 shows the characteristics of surgical interventions in the various periods.

Table 4.

Surgery type

Periods of activity of clinic

1976-1992

1993-2008

2009-2018

Packing

1 (1)*

3 (2)

18 (10)

Hemihepatectomy

2 (1)

-

1 (0)

Hemihepatectomy + packing

4 (4)

1 (0)

1 (0)

Resection – preparation

5 (2)

5 (4)

-

Resection-preparation + packing

3 (3)

-

2 (1)

Suturing/coagulation

-

8 (5)

4 (2)

Suturing/coagulation + packing

1 (1)

7 (2)

2  (0)

Total

16 (12)

24 (13)

28 (13)

Mortality

75 %**

54 %**

46 %**

Note: * – number of lethal outcomes is indicated in brackets; ** – p < 0.01.

In the first period (1976-1992), the clinical trends showed adherence to radical surgery for patients with severe hepatic injuries. It was determined by the trends of that time (Shapkin V.S., Grinenko Zh.A. Closed and opened hepatic injuries. M.: Medicine; 1997; 182 p.). 87.5 % of surgical interventions were presented by liver resection. The mortality was 75 %.
In the second period (1993-2008), the gradual refusal from primary atypical resection of the liver happened. During the second period, anatomic resection of the liver was conducted for 1 case, and atypical liver resections - for 5 patients. The total amount of radical operations decreased more than two times. Radical operations were replaced by less aggressive techniques in combination with packing, resulting in decreasing rate of lethal outcomes in patients with severe closed hepatic injuries to 54 %. The rate of use of primary gauze packing were 12.5 % for this period.
For the third period (2009-2018), active implementation of the damage control concept was realized. In 2009-2018, active use of primary gauze packing for surgery of severe hepatic injuries was noted (64 %, 18 patients). Resection interventions were conducted only for 14 %. Primary packing was accompanied by draining of the region around sponges with use of PVC drains. One should note that primary packing was also successfully used for 2 cases with degree 3 of hepatic injury, with extremely severe condition of patients. The time intervals of removal of sponges were individual. The total amount of complications of primary packing was 16.6 % (3 patients). Therefore, gradual implementation of the damage control for severe hepatic injuries decreased the mortality to 46 %, which is lower than in the previous periods (number of degrees of freedom - 12, χ2 – 36.286, critical values of χ2 with p < 0.01 – 26.217).

CONCLUSION

1. Active implementation of primary packing as a part of the damage control concept improved the outcomes of treatment of polytraumatized patients in surgery of liver injuries.
2.   Liver resection refusal, and the use of gauze packing for primary hemostasis decrease the mortality in severe closed hepatic injuries.

Information on financing and conflict of interests

The study was conducted without sponsorship.
The authors declare the absence of any clear or potential conflicts of interests relating to publication of this article. 

REFERENCES:

1.      Smolyar AN, Dzhagraev KR. One-stage surgical treatment of severe closed combined liver trauma surgery. Surgery. Pirogov Journal. 2015; (2): 79-81. Russian (Смоляр А.Н., Джаграев К.Р. Одноэтапное хирургическое лечение тяжелой закрытой сочетанной травмы печени //Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2015. № 2. С. 79-81)
2.      Sigua BV, Zemlyanoi VP, Dykov AK. Blunt abdomen trauma liver damage. Bulletin of Mechnikov North-West State Medical University. 2014; 6(3): 93-98. Russian (Сигуа Б.В., Земляной В.П., Дюков А.К. Закрытая травма живота с повреждением печени //Вестник Северо-Западного государственного медицинского университета им. И.И. Мечникова. 2014. Т. 6, № 3. С. 93-98)
3.      Shapkin YuG, Chalyk YuV, Stekolnikov NYu, Gusev KA. Perihepatic paking as the first stage of damage control strategy. Annals of Surgical Hepatology. 2017; 22(4): 89-95. Russian (Шапкин Ю.Г., Чалык Ю.В., Стекольников Н.Ю., Гусев К.А. Тампонада печени как первый этап тактики Damage Control //Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 2017. № 22(4). С. 89-95)
4.      Rogal ML, Smolyar AN, Dzhagraev KR. Surgical treatment of closed liver injury. In: Arrangement of emergency medical care for patients during high rate of admission. Materials of the All-Russian Conference from the Third Congress of Critical Care Physicians. Moscow, October 6-7, 2016. Sklifosofsky Research Institute of Emergency Care. 2016: 39-40. Russian (Рогаль М.Л., Смоляр А.Н., Джаграев К.Р. Хирургическое лечение закрытой травмы печени //Оказание скорой медицинской и неотложной медицинской помощи раненым и пострадавшим при массовом поступлении: материалы Вcероссийской конференции в рамках 3-го съезда врачей неотложной медицины, г. Москва, 06-07 октября 2016 г. Москва: НИИ скорой помощи им. Н.В. Склифосовского, 2016. С. 39-40)
5.      Timerbulatov VM, Fayazov RR, Timerbulatov ShV, Gareev RN, Nguyen KhK, Khalikov AA, et al. Surgical tactics for traumatic liver damage from the standpoint of modern technologies (clinical and experimental research). Medical Bulletin of Bashkortostan. 2012; 7(6): 64-69. Russian (Тимербулатов В.М., Фаязов Р.Р., Тимербулатов Ш.В., Гареев Р.Н., Нгуен Х.К., Халиков А.А. и др. Хирургическая тактика при травматических повреждениях печени с позиций современных технологий (клинико-экспериментальное исследование) //Медицинский вестник Башкортостана. 2012. Т. 7, № 6. С. 64-69)
6.      Bazaev AV, Aleynikov AV, Korolev SK, Kokobelyan AR, Rodin AG, Efremenko VA et al. Damage to the liver and spleen in patients with combined road injury. Selected issues of treatment of trauma to the chest and abdomen. 2014; 1(11): 17-19. Russian (Базаев А.В., Алейников А.В., Королёв С.К., Кокобелян А.Р., Родин А.Г., Ефременко В.А. и др. Повреждения печени и селезёнки у пострадавших с сочетанной автодорожной травмой //Избранные вопросы лечения травмы груди и живота. 2014. № 1(11). С. 17-19)
7.      Parkhisenko YuA, Vorontsov AK, Vorontsov KE, Bezaltynnykh AA. Analysis of the results of surgical treatment of patients with trauma of the liver. Prospects for Science and Education. 2018; 1(31): 245-250. Russian (Пархисенко Ю.А., Воронцов А.К., Воронцов К.Е., Безалтынных А.А. Анализ результатов хирургического лечения пациентов с травматическими повреждениями печени //Перспективы науки и образования. 2018. № 1(31). С. 245-250)
8.      Gumanenko EK. Military Field Surgery. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2008. 768 p. Russian (Гуманенко Е.К. Военно-полевая хирургия. Москва: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2008. 768 c.)
9.      Rauchfuss F, Voigt R, Götz M, Heise M, Uberrück T, Settmacher U. Damage control concept in liver trauma. Package strategies and secondary measures. Chirurg. 2009; 80(10): 923-928
10.    Jiang H, Wang J. Emergency strategies and trends in the management of liver trauma. Front Med. 2012; 6(3): 225-233
11.    Samokhvalov IM, Afonchikov VS, Badalov VI, Borisov MB et al. Practical Guide to Damage Control. St. Petersburg: R-COPI, 2018; 370 p. Russian (Самохвалов И.М. Афончиков В.С., Бадалов В.И., Борисов М.Б. и др. Практическое руководство по Damage Control. Санкт-Петербург: Р-КОПИ, 2018. 370 с.)
12.    Shapkin VS, Grinenko ZhA. Closed and open liver damage. Moscow: Medicine, 1977. 182 p. Russian (Шапкин В.С., Гриненко Ж.А. Закрытые и открытые повреждения печени. Москва: Медицина,1977. 182 с.)

Статистика просмотров

Загрузка метрик ...

Ссылки

  • На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.