Extension of Nonoperative Management of Blunt Pancreatic Trauma to Include Grade III Injuries: A Safety Analysis

Should surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound be the preferred test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries in operative trauma cases?

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of multiple tests for detecting the presence of a main pancreatic duct injury remains poor. Given the central importance of main duct integrity for both subsequent treatment algorithms and patient outcomes, poor test reliability is problematic. The primary aim was to evaluate the comparative test performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries.

METHODS

All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (2010-2021) were evaluated. Patients who received an IOUS pancreas-focused evaluation, with Grades III, IV, and V injuries (main duct injury) were compared with those with Grade I and Grade II trauma (no main duct injury). Test performances were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 248 pancreatic injuries, 74 underwent an IOUS. The additional mix of diagnostic studies (CT, MRCP, ERCP) was variable across grade of injury. Of these 74 IOUS cases for pancreatic injuries, 48 (64.8%) were confirmed as Grades III, IV, or V main duct injuries. The patients were predominantly young (median age = 33, IQR:21-45) blunt injured (70%) males (74%) with severe injury demographics (injury severity score = 28, (IQR:19-36); 30% hemodynamic instability; 91% synchronous intra-abdominal injuries). Thirty-five percent of patients required damage-control surgery. Patient outcomes included a median 13-day hospital length of stay and 1% mortality rate. Test performance was variable across groups (CT = 58% sensitive/77% specific; MRCP = 71% sensitive/100% specific; ERCP = 100% sensitive; IOUS = 98% sensitive/100% specific).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ultrasound is a highly sensitive and specific test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries. This technology is simple to learn, readily available, and should be considered in patients who require concurrent non-damage-control abdominal operations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

Open or Not Open the Retroperitoneum: A Pandora's Box for Blunt High-Grade Pancreatic Trauma?

INTRODUCTION

The optimal management strategy for pancreatic trauma remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the initial nonoperative management (NOM) strategy based on percutaneous drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography guided stent placement would improve outcomes for blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma.

METHODS

Patients with blunt abdominal trauma who were hemodynamically stable without signs of diffuse peritonitis were consecutively enrolled at a high-volume center. The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications (Clavien‒Dindo classification ≥ Ⅲb) for patients who underwent initial laparotomy (LAP) versus NOM. Modified Poisson regression was used to model the primary outcome. Propensity score matching and weighting models were included into a regression-based sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Of 119 patients with grade III/IV pancreatic trauma, 29 patients underwent initial NOM, and 90 underwent initial LAP. The incidence of severe complications in the LAP group was higher than that in the NOM group (65/90 [72.2%] versus 9/29 [31.0%], P < 0.001). In the multivariable modified Poisson regression model, the relative risk for severe complications was decreased in the NOM group (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.90; P = 0.020). The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the multivariable analysis. The mean number of reinterventions per patient was 1.8 in the NOM group and 2.6 in the LAP group (P = 0.067).

CONCLUSIONS

For blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma patients with stable hemodynamics and no diffuse peritonitis, the NOM strategy was associated with a lower risk of severe complications (Clavien‒Dindo classification ≥ Ⅲb) and did not require more invasive reintervention procedures. In high-volume centers with sufficient expertise, percutaneous drainage combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography guided stent placement may serve as an initial reasonable option for selected patients.

Does drainage or resection predict subsequent interventions and long-term quality of life in patients with Grade IV pancreatic injuries: A population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise remains significant for the treatment of Grade IV pancreatic injuries in stable patients (i.e., drainage vs. resection). The literature is poor in regards to experience, confirmed main pancreatic ductal injury, nuanced multidisciplinary treatment, and long-term patient quality of life (QOL). The primary aim was to evaluate the management and outcomes (including long-term QOL) associated with Grade IV pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (1995-2020) were evaluated (Grade IV injuries compared). Concordance of perioperative imaging, intraoperative exploration, and pathological reporting with a main pancreatic ductal injury was required. Patients with resection of Grade IV injuries were compared with drainage alone. Long-term QOL was evaluated (Standard Short Form-36).

RESULTS

Of 475 pancreatic injuries, 36(8%) were confirmed as Grade IV. Twenty-four (67%) underwent a pancreatic resection (29% pancreatoduodenectomy; 71% extended distal pancreatectomy [EDP]). Patient, injury and procedure demographics were similar between resection and drainage groups (p > 0.05). Pancreas-specific complications in the drainage group included 92% pancreatic leaks, 8% pseudocyst, and 8% walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Among patients with controlled pancreatic fistulas beyond 90 days, 67% required subsequent pancreatic operations (fistulo-jejunostomy or EDP). Among patients whose fistulas closed, 75% suffered from recurrent pancreatitis (67% eventually undergoing a Frey or EDP). All patients in the resection group had fistula closure by 64 days after injury. The median number of pancreas-related health care encounters following discharge was higher in the drainage group (9 vs. 5; p = 0.012). Long-term (median follow-up = 9 years) total QOL, mental and physical health scores were higher in the initial resection group (p = 0.031, 0.022 and 0.017 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The immediate, intermediate and long-term experiences for patients who sustain Grade IV pancreatic injuries indicate that resection is the preferred option, when possible. The majority of drainage patients will require additional, delayed pancreas-targeted surgical interventions and report poorer long-term QOL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiology/Prognostic, Level III.

Missed pancreatic injury in patients undergoing conservative management of blunt abdominal trauma: Causes, sequelae and management

Objective: Pancreas is a less commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. This study aimed to analyze the management and outcomes of patients in whom the pancreatic injury was missed during the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma.

Material and Methods: We retrospectively (2009-2019) analyzed the details and outcome of patients who underwent conservative management of blunt abdominal trauma, where the diagnosis of pancreatic injury was missed for at least 72 hours following trauma.

Results: A total of 31 patients with missed pancreatic injury were identified. All patients were hemodynamically stable following trauma and most (21) were initially assessed only by an ultrasound. A delayed diagnosis of pancreatic injury was made at a mean of 28 (4 to 60) days after trauma when patients developed abdominal pain (31), distension (18), fever (10) or vomiting (8). On repeat imaging, 18 (58.1%) patients had high grade pancreatic injuries including complete transection or pancreatic duct injury. Seven (22.5%) patients were managed conservatively, seventeen (54.8%) underwent percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections, seven (22.5%) underwent endoscopic or surgical drainage procedure for symptomatic pseudocyst. Eleven (35.4%) patients needed readmissions to manage recurrent pancreatitis, intra-abdominal abscess and pancreatic fistula. Three patients required pancreatic duct stenting for pancreatic fistula. There was no mortality.

Conclusion: Pancreatic injury may be missed in patients who remain hemodynamically stable with minimal clinical symptoms after abdominal trauma, especially if screened only by an ultrasound. In our series, there was significant morbidity of missed pancreatic injury.

A multicenter trial of current trends in the diagnosis and management of high-grade pancreatic injuries

BACKGROUND

Outcomes following pancreatic trauma have not improved significantly over the past two decades. A 2013 Western Trauma Association algorithm highlighted emerging data that might improve the diagnosis and management of high-grade pancreatic injuries (HGPIs; grades III-V). We hypothesized that the use of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, pancreatic duct stenting, operative drainage versus resection, and nonoperative management of HGPIs increased over time.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018 was performed. Data were analyzed by grade and time period (PRE, 2010-2013; POST, 2014-2018) using various statistical tests where appropriate.

RESULTS

Thirty-two centers reported data on 515 HGPI patients. A total of 270 (53%) had penetrating trauma, and 58% went directly to the operating room without imaging. Eighty-nine (17%) died within 24 hours. Management and outcomes of 426 24-hour survivors were evaluated. Agreement between computed tomography and operating room grading was 38%. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography use doubled in grade IV/V injuries over time but was still low.Overall HGPI treatment and outcomes did not change over time. Resection was performed in 78% of grade III injuries and remained stable over time, while resection of grade IV/V injuries trended downward (56% to 39%, p = 0.11). Pancreas-related complications (PRCs) occurred more frequently in grade IV/V injuries managed with drainage versus resection (61% vs. 32%, p = 0.0051), but there was no difference in PRCs for grade III injuries between resection and drainage.Pancreatectomy closure had no impact on PRCs. Pancreatic duct stenting increased over time in grade IV/V injuries, with 76% used to treat PRCs.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative and computed tomography grading are different in the majority of HGPI cases. Resection is still used for most patients with grade III injuries; however, drainage may be a noninferior alternative. Drainage trended upward for grade IV/V injuries, but the higher rate of PRCs calls for caution in this practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective diagnostic/therapeutic study, level III.

Clinical course and pancreas parenchyma sparing surgical treatment of severe pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma (PT) involving the main pancreatic duct is rare, but represents a challenging clinical problem with relevant morbidity and mortality. It is generally classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) and often presents as concomitant injury in blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma. Diagnosis may be delayed because of a lack of clinical or radiological manifestation. Treatment options for main pancreatic duct injuries comprise highly complex surgical procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 12 patients who underwent surgery in two tertiary centers in Germany during 2003-2016 for grade III-V PT with affection of the main pancreatic duct, according to the AAST classification.

RESULTS

The median age was 23 (range: 7-44) years. In nine patients blunt abdominal trauma was the reason for PT, whereas penetrating trauma only occurred in three patients. MRI outperformed classical trauma CT imaging with regard to detection of duct involvement. Complex procedures as i.e. an emergency pancreatic head resection, distal pancreatectomy or parenchyma sparing pancreatogastrostomy were performed. Compared to elective pancreatic surgery the complication rate in the emergency setting was higher. Yet, parenchyma-sparing procedures demonstrated safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Often extension of diagnostics including MRI and/or ERP at an early stage is necessary to guide clinical decision-making. If, due to main duct injuries, surgical therapy for PT is required, we suggest consideration of an organ preservative pancreatogastrostomy in grade III/IV trauma of the pancreatic body or tail.

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree injuries are rare in both adult and pediatric trauma patients, and due to their anatomical location, associated injuries are very common. Mortality is primarily related to associated injuries, but morbidity remains high even in isolated injuries. Optimal management of duodeno-bilio-pancreatic injuries is dictated primarily by hemodynamic stability, clinical presentation, and grade of injury. Endoscopic and percutaneous interventions have increased the ability to non-operatively manage these injuries. Late diagnosis and treatment are both associated to increased morbidity and mortality. Sequelae of late presentations of pancreatic injury and complications of severe pancreatic trauma are also increasingly addressed endoscopically and with interventional radiology procedures. However, for moderate and severe extrahepatic biliary and severe duodeno-pancreatic injuries, immediate operative intervention is preferred as associated injuries are frequent and commonly present with hemodynamic instability or peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) duodenal, pancreatic, and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma management guidelines.

Operative versus non-operative management of blunt pancreatic trauma: A systematic review

Introduction

Motor vehicle crashes are common causes of blunt abdominal trauma in the 21st century. While splenic trauma occurs very frequently and thus there is a well-established treatment paradigm, traumatic pancreatic injuries are relatively infrequent, occurring in only 3–5% of traumas. This low incidence means physicians have reduced experience with this condition and there is still ongoing debate with regards to the best practice in managing pancreatic trauma. During severe trauma, the pancreas can be injured as a consequence of blunt and penetrating injury. This has an estimated mortality rate ranging from 9 to 34%.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using three scientific databases: Embase, Medline and Cochrane and in-line with the PRISMA statement. We included only articles published in English, available as full text and describing only adults. Keywords included: pancrea*, trauma, blunt, operative management and non-operative management.

Results

Three studies were found that directly compared operative versus non-operative management in blunt pancreatic trauma. Length of stay, mortality and rate of re-intervention were lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group. However, the average grade of pancreatic injury was lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group.

Discussion

Our results revealed that patients who undergo non-operative management tend to have lower grade of injuries and patients with higher grade of injury tend to be managed in an operative fashion. This could be likely due to the fact that higher grade of pancreatic injuries is often accompanied by other injuries such as hollow viscus injury and therefore require operative intervention.

Conclusion

Non-operative management is a safe approach for low-grade blunt pancreatic trauma without ductal injuries. However, more evidence is required to improve our understanding and treatment plans. We suggest a large international multicentre study combining data from multiple international trauma centres to collect adequate data.

Nonoperative management of solid abdominal organ injuries: From past to present

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Today, a significant proportion of solid abdominal organ injuries, whether caused by penetrating or blunt trauma, are managed nonoperatively. However, the controversy over operative versus nonoperative management started more than a hundred years ago. The aim of this review is to highlight some of the key past observations and summarize the current knowledge and guidelines in the management of solid abdominal organ injuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-systematic search through historical articles and references on the management practices of abdominal injuries was conducted utilizing early printed volumes of major surgical and medical journals from the late 19th century onwards.

RESULTS

Until the late 19th century, the standard treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries was nonoperative. The first article advocating formal laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds was published in 1881 by Sims. After World War I, the policy of mandatory laparotomy became standard practice for penetrating abdominal trauma. During the latter half of the 20th century, the concept of selective nonoperative management, initially for anterior abdominal stab wounds and later also gunshot wounds, was adopted by major trauma centers in South Africa, the United States, and little later in Europe. In blunt solid abdominal organ injuries, the evolution from surgery to nonoperative management in hemodynamically stable patients aided by the development of modern imaging techniques was rapid from 1980s onwards.

CONCLUSION

With the help of modern imaging techniques and adjunctive radiological and endoscopic interventions, a major shift from mandatory to selective surgical approach to solid abdominal organ injuries has occurred during the last 30-50 years.

Management of adult pancreatic injuries: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury to the pancreas is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including fistula, sepsis, and death. There are currently no practice management guidelines for the medical and surgical management of traumatic pancreatic injuries. The overall objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the physician who is presented with traumatic injury to the pancreas.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database using PubMed was searched to identify English language articles published from January 1965 to December 2014 regarding adult patients with pancreatic injuries. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to formulate evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Three hundred nineteen articles were identified. Of these, 52 articles underwent full text review, and 37 were selected for guideline construction.

CONCLUSION

Patients with grade I/II injuries tend to have fewer complications; for these, we conditionally recommend nonoperative or nonresectional management. For grade III/IV injuries identified on computed tomography or at operation, we conditionally recommend pancreatic resection. We conditionally recommend against the routine use of octreotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula prophylaxis. No recommendations could be made regarding the following two topics: optimal surgical management of grade V injuries, and the need for routine splenectomy with distal pancreatectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

Conservative and surgical management of pancreatic trauma in adult patients

BACKGROUND

The management of pancreatic trauma is complex. The aim of this study was to report our experience in the management of pancreatic trauma.

METHODS

All patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2013 for pancreatic trauma were included. Traumatic injuries of the pancreas were classified according to the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) in five grades. Mortality and morbidity were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were analyzed (mean age: 38±17 years). Nineteen (63%) patients had a blunt trauma and 12 (40%) had pancreatic injury ≥ grade 3. Fifteen patients underwent exploratory laparotomy and the other 15 patients had nonoperative management (NOM). Four (13%) patients had a partial pancreatectomy [distal pancreatectomy (n=3) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (n=1)]. Overall, in hospital mortality was 20% (n=6). Postoperative mortality was 27% (n=4/15). Mortality of NOM group was 13% (n=2/15) in both cases death was due to severe head injury. Among the patients who underwent NOM, three patients had injury ≥ grade 3, one patient had a stent placement in the pancreatic duct and two patients underwent endoscopic drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative management of pancreatic trauma leads to a higher mortality. This must not be necessarily related to the pancreas injury alone but also to the associated injuries including liver, spleen and vascular trauma which may cause impaired outcome more than pancreas injury.

Definition of hemodynamic stability in blunt trauma patients: a systematic review and assessment amongst Dutch trauma team members

INTRODUCTION

Trauma is a great contributor to mortality worldwide. One of the challenges in trauma care is early identification and management of bleeding. The circulatory status of blunt trauma patients in the emergency room is evaluated using hemodynamic (HD) parameters. However, there is no consensus on which parameters to use. In this study, we evaluate the used terms and definitions in the literature for HD stability and compare those to the opinion of Dutch trauma team members.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to collect the definitions used for HD stability. Studies describing the assessment and/or treatment of blunt trauma patients in the emergency room were included. In addition, an online survey was conducted amongst Dutch trauma team members.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 222, 67 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion. HD stability was defined in 70% of these articles. The most used parameters were systolic blood pressure and heart rate. Besides the variety of parameters, a broad range of corresponding cut-off points is noted. Despite some common ground, high inter- and intra-variability is seen for the physicians that are part of the Dutch trauma teams.

CONCLUSION

All authors acknowledge HD stability as the most important factor in the assessment and management of blunt trauma patients. There is, however, no consensus in the literature as well as none-to-fair consensus amongst Dutch trauma team members in the definition of HD stability. A trauma team ready to co-operate with consensus-based opinions together with a valid scoring system is in our opinion the best method to assess and treat seriously injured trauma patients.

Predictors of successful non-operative management of grade III & IV blunt pancreatic trauma

Introduction

Although surgery is the preferred treatment for grade III&IV pancreatic trauma, there is a growing movement for non-operative management. in blunt pancreatic trauma. Very few studies compare operative versus non-operative management in adult patients.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed from 2004 to 2013 in the department of gastrointestinal surgery, NIMS, Hyderabad. Comparative analysis was performed between patients who failed versus those who were successfully managed with non-operative management.

Results

34 patients had grade III/IV trauma out of which 8 were operated early with the remaining 26 initially under a NOM strategy, 10 of them could be successfully managed without any operation. Post-traumatic pancreatitis, Necrotizing pancreatitis, Ileus, contusion on CT, surrounding organ injuries are independently associated with failure of NOM on a univariate analysis. On multivariate logistic regression presence of necrosis& associated organ injury are factors that predict failure of NOM independently. Development of a pseudocyst is the only significant factor that is associated with a success of NOM.

Conclusions

Non-operative measures should be attempted in a select group of grade III&IV blunt pancreatic trauma. In hemodynamically stable patients with a controlled leak walled off as a pseudocyst without associated organ injuries and pancreatic necrosis, NOM has a higher success rate.

•

Non-operative measures should be attempted in a select group of high grade (grade III/IV) pancreatic trauma.

•

Controlled leak walled off as a pseudocyst, absent necrosis&organ injuries predict high success rate for NOM.

•

Dedicated nutritional, gastrointestinal and interventional radiological support are the key components of care.

Management of pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma (PT) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; the therapeutic options remain debated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of PT treated in the University Hospital of Grenoble over a 22-year span. The decision for initial laparotomy depended on hemodynamic status as well as on associated lesions. Main pancreatic duct lesions were always searched for. PT lesions were graded according to the AAST classification.

RESULTS

Of a total of 46 PT, 34 were grades II or I. Hemodynamic instability led to immediate laparotomy in 18 patients, for whom treatment was always drainage of the pancreatic bed; morbidity was 30%. Eight patients had grade III injuries, six of whom underwent immediate operation: three underwent splenopancreatectomy without any major complications while the other three who had simple drainage required re-operation for peritonitis, with one death related to pancreatic complications. Four patients had grades IV or V PT: two pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, with no major complication, while one patient underwent duodenal reconstruction with pancreatic drainage, complicated by pancreatic and duodenal fistula requiring a hospital stay of two months. The post-trauma course was complicated for all patients with main pancreatic duct involvement. Our outcomes were similar to those found in the literature.

CONCLUSION

In patients with distal PT and main pancreatic duct involvement, simple drainage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. For proximal PT, the therapeutic options of drainage versus pancreatoduodenectomy must be weighed; pancreatoduodenectomy may be unavoidable when the duodenum is injured as well. Two-stage (resection first, reconstruction later) could be an effective alternative in the emergency setting when there are other associated traumatic lesions.

Endoscopic management for pancreatic injuries due to blunt abdominal trauma decreases failure of nonoperative management and incidence of pancreatic-related complications

INTRODUCTION

The actual benefit of endoscopic techniques in the non-operative management (NOM) of pancreatic injury is still unclear, with its role and effectiveness in the NOM of pancreatic injury remains defined and doubted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and long-term results of endoscopic techniques in the NOM of blunt pancreatic injury, and to determine whether NOM can be performed safely for selective patients with pancreatic injury.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The records and follow-up data of all patients with blunt pancreatic injuries over 16-year period from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 2012 at our department were retrospectively reviewed. Failure of NOM (FNOM) occurred if laparotomy was required after attempted NOM.

RESULTS

132 patients (32% of all patients with blunt pancreatic injury) underwent NOM, including 58 who underwent endoscopic management (EM) and 74 who were observed without EM (NO-EM). FNOM of overall NOM was 20%, including 30% of NO-EM and 9% of EM. There was no significant difference in FNOM for NO-EM versus EM for grade I, however, a significant decrease in FNOM was noted with the addition of EM for grade II and III. EM was a statistically significant independent risk factor. Regular follow-up of 1 year showed that, for patients from grade I to III, 53 patients (42%) from operative management (OM) and 34 patients (46%) of the NO-EM developed various pancreatic-related complications, while only 15 patients (26%) of the EM developed such complications, and the difference was significant.

CONCLUSION

Application of strictly defined selection criteria for NOM and EM in patients with blunt pancreatic injury resulted in one of the lowest FNOM rates (9%) and pancreatic-related complications incidence (25%). Selective application of EM for hemodynamically stable patients with blunt pancreatic injury will extend the indications for, and improve success of NOM.

Pancreatic injuries in earthquake victims: what have we learnt?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinical characteristic and management of patients with pancreatic injuries from the Wen-Chuan and Lu-Shan earthquakes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 39,784 patients from the Wen-Chuan earthquake and 1489 from the Lu-Shan earthquake. The demographics, clinical data, treatment strategies, and outcomes of patients with pancreatic injuries were recorded and compared between survivors of the two earthquakes.

RESULTS

Pancreatic injury occurred only in a small proportion (0.2%) in patients with trauma on admission, and most (61%) patients had Grades I-II pancreatic injuries. Blunt trauma was the leading cause of pancreatic trauma. Most patients (95%) suffered multiple injuries, of which chest injuries (61%) were the most common. Elevated serum amylase levels were observed in 50 (86%) of 58 patients, and computed tomography (CT) identified pancreatic injuries in 32 (80%) of 40 patients. A significantly higher rate (p = 0.043) of pancreatic complication was present in patients with Grade III and IV injuries (38%) than in those with Grade I and II injuries (18%). Forty patients were initially treated by conservative management with 6 (15%) requiring delayed operations. Four (67%) pancreatic complications and 2 (33%) deaths occurred in patients with delayed operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated serum amylase analysis, CT, and laparoscopic exploration were reliable diagnostic modalities to diagnose pancreatic injury. Conservative management was safe in patients with Grade I and II injuries. Delayed operation, especially for Grade III patients, resulted in increased morbidity and mortality.