Epidemiological evaluation of hepatic trauma victims undergoing surgery

Kalil, Mitre; Amaral, Isaac Massaud Amim

doi:10.1590/0100-69912016001006

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In India, blunt abdominal trauma due to RTI is the commonest mechanism of injury except in the state of Jammu and Kashmir (a conflict zone) which has a higher proportion of penetrating abdominal trauma [ 19 ]. In countries where assault is common, penetrating injuries are the most common cause of abdominal injury thence liver injuries [ 22 – 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The operative management cohort differed from the non-operative cohort significantly in their mean SBP, 99 (26.2%) vs. 111 (21.0%); proportion of penetrating injury, 21.7% vs. 4.4%; heart rate, 103 (2.4) vs. 97 (18.5); and ISS, 14 (9-22) vs. 17 (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). Univariate analysis showed no difference between these two cohorts in their age and GCS ( Table 3).…”

Section: Operative Managementmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute to 90% of injuries occurring in the world. The liver is one of the commonest organs injured in abdominal trauma. This study aims to highlight the demographic and management profile of liver injury patients, presenting to four urban Indian university hospitals in India. Methods This is a retrospective registry-based study. Data of patients with liver injury either isolated or concomitant with other injuries was used using the ICD-10 code S36.1 for liver injury. The severity of injury was graded based on the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) grading for liver injuries. Results A total of 368 liver injury patients were analysed. Eighty-nine percent were males, with road traffic injuries being the commonest mechanism. As per WSES liver injury grade, there were 127 (34.5%) grade I, 96 (26.1%) grade II, 70 (19.0%) grade III and 66 (17.9%) grade IV injuries. The overall mortality was 16.6%. Two hundred sixty-two patients (71.2%) were managed non-operatively (NOM), and 106 (38.8%) were operated. 90.1% of those managed non-operatively survived. Conclusion In this multicentre cohort of liver injury patients from urban university hospitals in India, the commonest profile of patient was a young male, with a blunt injury to the abdomen due to a road traffic accident. Success rate of non-operative management of liver injury is comparable to other countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Operative Managementmentioning

confidence: 94%

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In India, blunt abdominal trauma due to RTI is the commonest mechanism of injury except in the state of Jammu and Kashmir (a con ict zone) which has a higher proportion of penetrating abdominal trauma [19]. In countries where assault is common, penetrating injuries is the most common cause of abdominal injury thence liver injuries [22][23][24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

Sinha

Khajanchi²,

Prajapati³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) contribute to 90% of injuries occurring in the world. Liver is the one of the commonest organ injured in abdominal trauma. This study aims to highlight the demographic and management profile of liver injury patients, presenting to four urban Indian university hospitals in India. Methods This is a retrospective registry-based study. Data of patients with liver injury either isolated or concomitant with other injuries was used using the ICD-10 code, S36.1 for liver injury. The severity of injury was graded based on the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) grading for liver injuries. Results A total of 368 liver injury patients were analysed. 89% were males, with road traffic injuries being the commonest mechanism. As per World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) liver injury grade, there were 126 (33.7%) grade I, 87(23.6%) grade II, 67(18.2%) grade III & 88 (24.5%) grade IV injuries. The overall mortality was 16.6%. 262 patients (71.2%) were managed non-operatively (NOM) & 106 (38.8%) were operated. 90.1% of those managed non-operatively, survived. Conclusion In this multi-centre cohort of liver injury patients from urban university hospitals in India, the commonest profile of patient with a was a young male, with a blunt injury to the abdomen due to a road traffic accident. Success rate of non-operative management of liver injury is comparable to other countries.

show abstract

“…Liver is the second most common abdominal organ that can get injured by blunt trauma [1,26] and is the most common cause of death in abdominal trauma-100% mortality if untreated or missed from examination. Blunt abdominal trauma is more fatal than penetrating trauma.…”

Section: Epidemiology Of Liver Traumamentioning

confidence: 99%

Hepatic Trauma

Yahya¹

2018

Liver Research and Clinical Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liver is the second most common solid organ frequently injured by blunt trauma and could be the commonest organ injured by penetrating trauma. The injury can be mild and goes undetected or detected and treated conservatively. It can be severe where the liver wounds can bleed until death. Once the patients with liver injury are resuscitated, the degree of liver injury can be evaluated using ultrasound scan and computed tomography imaging. If the patient is stable, diagnostic peritoneal lavage is very helpful when the imaging facilities are not available. Non-operative treatment of liver trauma has been proven to be valuable in 80% of patients with grade I, II, III and IV (grade I-mild injury; grade II-moderate injury; grade III and IV-severe liver injury). Laparotomy is mandatory if the patient's condition is unstable. By using the explorative laparotomy technique, the grade of liver injury is assessed, and accordingly the procedure is performed including suturing, ligation of the bleeding vessel, segmental resection, perihepatic packing, and so on. Morbidity and mortality of liver injury can be minimized with early diagnosis and appropriate management.

show abstract

Epidemiological evaluation of hepatic trauma victims undergoing surgery

Abstract: despite technological advances in diagnosis and treatment, mortality rates in liver trauma remain high, especially in patients suffering from blunt trauma in relation to penetrating one.

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

Hepatic Trauma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About