2. 嘉兴大学附属医院/嘉兴市第一医院急诊科, 嘉兴 314001
创伤后出血和相关的创伤性凝血病仍然是可预防的多器官衰竭和死亡的主要原因[1]。严重骨盆骨折主要由高能量损伤所致,骨盆环不稳定,并常伴有血流动力学不稳定或者潜在的不稳定,总体住院病死率约为8%,入院时休克的患者住院病死率高达15%[2-3]。
对于严重骨盆骨折患者应尽早稳定骨盆,骨盆带及骨盆外固定架(前环外固定架和“C”形钳两类)是最常用的方法。稳定骨盆可以限制盆腔容量,在一定程度上减少盆腔出血,为进一步治疗提供有利条件[4]。然而,后续治疗存在争议,欧洲推荐腹膜外骨盆填塞(PPP),北美更多选择血管造影栓塞(AE),中国2015年的专家共识尚未明确,原因在于骨盆骨折出血来源不确定性,复苏性主动脉阻断(REBOA)则作为极端情况下的紧急措施[1, 4~6]。创伤中心建设后设备及介入技术能力的提升,近年来更多的医疗机构将AE作为首选的方式,并认为其对静脉性的出血也有止血作用[7]。医疗机构应依据严重骨盆骨折患者伤情的严重性、复杂程度以及自身整体实力等,制定止血措施综合应用的急救流程,缩短受伤至开始止血的时间。
为全面了解不稳定骨盆骨折患者的血管损伤治疗,笔者以“严重骨盆骨折”“骨盆填塞” “血管栓塞”“复苏性主动脉球囊阻断”作为关键词,在中国知网、万方数据库进行检索;以“severe pelvic fracture”“angioembolisation”“preperitoneal pelvic packing”“resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta”作为关键词,在PubMed、Web of Science、Embase数据库进行检索,并报道相关进展如下。
1 严重骨盆骨折的腹膜外骨盆填塞(PPP)治疗骨盆外伤的主要出血来源是静脉和骨,其比例高达80%[8]。因此部分学者趋向于PPP在骨盆骨折大出血患者中应早期应用,因其可通过增加腹膜后间隙内的压力而控制出血,降低病死率[9]。PPP作为早期控制出血的方法,其适应证并没有统一的标准,通常认为严重骨盆骨折患者血流动力学极不稳定没有条件行进一步的影像学检查、输注至少2~4个单位的悬浮红细胞(packed red blood cells,PRBC)后循环仍无改善并排除动脉性出血,或者AE后仍有持续出血则行PPP。此外,FAST阳性血流动力学不稳定患者常常直接行剖腹探查术,此种情况下,若在处理腹部出血源后患者仍低血压,并且发现了明显的盆腔血肿,则立即行PPP[10]。Frassini等[9]开展的一项针对血流动力学不稳定骨盆骨折患者的倾向得分匹配研究表明,与非PPP组相比,PPP组的24 h病死率更低,总体生存率明显改善,血压更稳定,他们认为腹膜外骨盆填塞是一种可以在短时间内提高严重骨盆骨折患者血流动力学稳定性的有效治疗手段。
严重骨盆骨折血管损伤患者优先选择PPP还是AE仍有争议,近期的一项大型回顾性研究显示,倾向性评分匹配后严重骨盆骨折PPP组的病死率高于AE组,但差异无统计学意义(38.2% vs. 30.9%,P = 0.321)[11]。PPP的优势在于执行时间较短,可为后续的评估和治疗留出足够的时间,有研究表明其最佳手术延迟时间约为45 min[12]。
PPP最常见的并发症是感染,其感染率高达34.1%,另外,填塞敷料通常需要在48 h内去除或更换,这更增加了感染的风险,特别是伴有脏器损伤(如肠、膀胱)或开放性盆腔创伤的情况下[13]。虽然骨盆骨折的出血来源主要来自静脉和骨,但血肿压力增高后出血可自止,且对于动脉出血,PPP无法进行有效止血,因此其使用受到了一定限制[14]。PPP治疗的患者静脉回流有一定程度受阻,术后并发血栓形成的风险较高[15]。新的观点更倾向在没有条件行AE的情况下,或者AE后不能止血或顽固性出血时再考虑PPP[1, 14~16]。
2 严重骨盆骨折的动脉栓塞(AE)治疗动脉损伤出血是严重骨盆骨折患者顽固血流动力学不稳定的主要原因,应尽早识别并采取有效措施。Sandhu等[14]研究发现,不稳定Young-Burgess型骨盆骨折是盆腔动脉出血的独立预测因子,该类骨盆骨折发生动脉出血的可能性是其他类型骨折患者的2.3倍。AE是控制动脉出血的最有效方法之一,并在“黄金1小时”内实施,无需等待4~6 h的输血、补液后循环仍然不稳定再考虑。有研究表明,AE时间延长会提高骨盆骨折患者的死亡风险[3、17],在Tesoriero等[18]的研究中患者栓塞的中位时间大于5 h,队列中80%的死亡可归因于未控制的早期出血。目前,随着介入技术的进步,这一时间已能缩短至51.3 min[14]。AE亦可通过降低盆腔动脉压力,减缓静脉及骨折断端的出血,在设备齐全、介入技术先进的大型创伤中心越来越被首选[7]。
增强CT是评估严重骨盆骨折血管损伤的重要手段,即使对于血流动力学不稳定的严重受伤患者,在结构良好的环境及组织优良的团队中,也可以是安全且合理的[1]。但增强CT时可能会因动脉痉挛或者形成暂时性的血栓而出现假阴性,一些新型CT机又可能过于敏感,因此造影剂外溢是栓塞治疗的重要参考但不是唯一适应证,应结合年龄、血流动力学及输血等状况综合考虑[19-20]。东部创伤外科协会(EAST)指南指出,血流动力学不稳定的患者在排除主要非盆腔出血源后,均应考虑急诊AE(Ⅰ级推荐)[6]。我国共识认为,大于60岁的严重骨盆骨折患者,无论血流动力学状况如何,均作为AE的指征[4]。
栓塞方式包括非选择性AE(如髂内动脉主干)和选择性AE(确切的髂内动脉分支)。选择性AE术后发生潜在并发症的几率较低[21],可作为首选,但应保留鞘管并及时评估需要再次栓塞和(或)PPP的可能性。非选择性AE可用于处理难以定位的弥漫性盆腔出血以及多支血管损伤,在术中出现血流动力学极端不稳定也应当机立断选择该方式,以缩短手术时间避免出现心脏骤停。另有研究证实,利用明胶海绵代替金属线圈作为栓剂对髂内动脉干进行非选择性AE可有效减少术后臀肌坏死并发症的发生[22]。
3 严重骨盆骨折的复苏性主动脉球囊阻断(REBOA)治疗REBOA作为一项微创抢救技术,能最大程度地控制动脉性出血,是治疗骨盆骨折休克患者的重要手段,可作为血流动力学极不稳定、濒临心搏骤停的严重骨盆骨折患者的临时性补充抢救措施。
虽然缺乏支持REBOA临床应用的高质量证据,但自2015年以来,REBOA的应用逐年增加,说明其效果得到创伤救治医师的肯定[23]。一项调查研究的结果显示,所有参与者均认为血流动力学不稳定作为REBOA治疗的指标,并且在有条件行REBOA的医疗机构中,有40%将其作为一线治疗[24]。然而,部分学者认为只有获得培训且经验丰富的医师才能有效利用REBOA对患者进行抢救[25-26]。
有学者建议,对于骨盆骨折导致的盆腔出血,REBOA放置在主动脉Ⅲ区效果最好,即肾动脉最低处到主动脉分叉处[27],闭塞时间最长不要超过60~90 min,过长时间的血流阻断会导致下肢缺血坏死、肾功能损害等严重并发症,并且患者病死率会随着闭塞时间的延长而增加[28-29]。另外,有研究表明鞘管的型号也会影响患者预后,Matsumura等[30]发现小鞘管组(≤8 Fr)相对于大鞘管组(≥9 Fr)放置时间更长,且发生并发症的几率更低。部分主动脉球囊阻断(partial REBOA,pREBOA)以及间歇性主动脉球囊阻断(intermittent REBOA,iREBOA)可允许远端器官灌注,减少缺血性并发症的发生[31-32]。但iREBOA在回缩球囊球囊期间会引起患者血流动力学的较大波动,再出血的风险较大,并且与iREBOA相比,pREBOA更能改善远端组织的灌注,降低心肌负荷[33]。Madurska等[34]的研究表明pREBOA可以达到血压控制目标,在患者条件允许状态下,可以通过pREBOA来减轻再灌注损伤。Matsumura等[35]得出球囊充盈60%可兼顾稳定患者的血流动力学和保证远端组织供血,但由于近端平均动脉压的动态变化以及球囊形状的不稳定,难以确定球囊体积和动脉压之间的线性关系。近年来随着REBOA材料及技术的进步,一种计算机控制的主动脉阻断装置被研制,与传统REBOA相比这种血管内可变主动脉控制装置(endovascular variable aortic control device,EVAC)在控制出血的治疗中实验对象的血流动力学更稳定,并且可减少缺血性损伤,有较好的应用前景[36-37]。
4 展望严重骨盆骨折常常伴有血管损伤,导致血流动力学不稳定,救治重点在于止血抗休克,早期全面快速评估、明确出血病因、及时采取适当的干预手段是救治的关键[38]。在院前应了解患者的受伤机制,采取适当措施来稳定骨盆,避免二次损伤,甚至对于危重患者可在现场行REBOA止血[39]。在急性复苏阶段,应遵循高级创伤生命支持(ATLS)流程进行早期快速评估,识别危及生命的严重损伤和潜在出血部位[40]。创伤急救数字化绿色通道平台的建立以及多学科团队的介入为最佳处置方案。缩短早期急诊滞留时间有利于改善患者的预后,因此具有血管造影功能的综合创伤手术室对于这些活动性出血患者既缩短了介入手术时间,达到早期止血的目的,又降低了将血压不稳定的患者转移到导管室组的风险,其必要性越来越被重视[41-42]。总之,各级医疗机构应根据自身特点及手术、介入等能力,制定骨盆骨折血管损伤患者的急救流程,合理使用早期关键的治疗措施,保证在黄金时间内控制盆腔出血。
利益冲突 所有作者声明无利益冲突
作者贡献声明 杨书聪:资料收集及整理,论文撰写;杨成:资料收集及整理;沈徐宁、郁慧杰:资料收集及整理、论文修改
[1] | Rossaint R, Afshari A, Bouillon B, et al. The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition[J]. Crit Care, 2023, 27(1): 80. DOI:10.1186/s13054-023-04327-7 |
[2] | Ghosh S, Aggarwal S, Kumar V, et al. Epidemiology of pelvic fractures in adults: Our experience at a tertiary hospital[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2019, 03: 138-141. DOI:10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.03.003 |
[3] | O'Connell KM, Kolnik S, Arif K, et al. Balloons up: shorter time to angioembolization is associated with reduced mortality in patients with shock and complex pelvic fractures (original study)[J]. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open, 2021, 6(1): e000663. DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2020-000663 |
[4] | 中华医学会急诊医学分会中华医学会创伤学分会中国医师协会急诊医师分会. 血流动力学不稳定骨盆骨折急诊处理专家共识[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2015, 12: 1314-1318. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2015.12.002 |
[5] | Tran TL, Brasel KJ, Karmy-Jones R, et al. Western Trauma Association Critical Decisions in Trauma: management of pelvic fracture with hemodynamic instability-2016 updates[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2016, 81(6): 1171-1174. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001230 |
[6] | Cullinane DC, Schiller HJ, Zielinski MD, et al. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guidelines for hemorrhage in pelvic fracture: update and systematic review[J]. J Trauma, 2011, 71(6): 1850-1868. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e31823dca9a |
[7] | Chen HT, Wang YC, Hsieh CC, et al. Trends and predictors of mortality in unstable pelvic ring fracture: a 10-year experience with a multidisciplinary institutional protocol[J]. World J Emerg Surg, 2019, 14: 61. DOI:10.1186/s13017-019-0282-x |
[8] | Benders KEM, Leenen LPH. Management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic ring fractures[J]. Front Surg, 2020, 7: 601321. DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2020.601321 |
[9] | Frassini S, Gupta S, Granieri S, et al. Extraperitoneal packing in unstable blunt pelvic trauma: a single-center study[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2020, 88(5): 597-606. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000002618 |
[10] | Glass NE, Burlew CC. Preperitoneal pelvic packing: how and when[J]. Curr Trauma Rep, 2015, 1(1): 1-7. DOI:10.1007/s40719-014-0001-8 |
[11] | Aoki M, Matsushima K, Matsumoto S. Angioembolization versus preperitoneal packing for severe pelvic fractures: a propensity matched analysis[J]. Am J Surg, 2023, 225(2): 408-413. DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.09.003 |
[12] | Osborn PM, Smith WR, Moore EE, et al. Direct retroperitoneal pelvic packing versus pelvic angiography: a comparison of two management protocols for haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures[J]. Injury, 2009, 40(1): 54-60. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.038 |
[13] | Kim KM, Kim MJ, Chung JS, et al. Determination of risk factors associated with surgical site infection in patients undergoing preperitoneal pelvic packing for unstable pelvic fracture[J]. Acute Crit Care, 2022, 37(2): 247-255. DOI:10.4266/acc.2021.01396 |
[14] | Sandhu J, Abrahams R, Miller Z, et al. Pelvic Trauma: factors predicting arterial hemorrhage and the role of Angiography and preperitoneal pelvic packing[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(11): 6376-6383. DOI:10.1007/s00330-020-06965-9 |
[15] | Patterson JT, Wier J, Gary JL. Preperitoneal pelvic packing for hypotension has a greater risk of venous thromboembolism than angioembolization: management of refractory hypotension in closed pelvic ring injury[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2022, 104(20): 1821-1829. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.22.00252 |
[16] | Migliorini F, Cocconi F, Schipper I, et al. Arterial angioembolisation versus pre-peritoneal pelvic packing in haemodynamically unstable patients with complex pelvic fractures: a meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2023. DOI:10.1007/s00068-023-02389-4 |
[17] | Matsushima K, Piccinini A, Schellenberg M, et al. Effect of door-to-angioembolization time on mortality in pelvic fracture: every hour of delay counts[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2018, 84(5): 685-692. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001803 |
[18] | Tesoriero RB, Bruns BR, Narayan M, et al. Angiographic embolization for hemorrhage following pelvic fracture: is it "time" for a paradigm shift?[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2017, 82(1): 18-26. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000001259 |
[19] | Chowdhury D. Does a fall from a standing height warrant computed tomography in an elderly patient with polytrauma?[J]. World J Emerg Med, 2023, 14(4): 302-306. DOI:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2023.040 |
[20] | Ramin S, Hermida M, Millet I, et al. Limits of intravascular contrast extravasation on computed tomography scan to define the need for pelvic angioembolization in pelvic blunt trauma: a specific assessment on the risk of false positives[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2018, 85(3): 527-535. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000002001 |
[21] | Lai CY, Tseng IC, Su CY, et al. High incidence of surgical site infection may be related to suboptimal case selection for non-selective arterial embolization during resuscitation of patients with pelvic fractures: a retrospective study[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2020, 21(1): 335. DOI:10.1186/s12891-020-03372-5 |
[22] | Maruhashi T, Kashimi F, Kotoh R, et al. Novel transcatheter arterial embolization method for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures to prevent complications of gluteal necrosis[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020, 46(5): 1129-1136. DOI:10.1007/s00068-018-01066-1 |
[23] | Jang JY, Bae KS, Chang SW, et al. Current management and clinical outcomes for patients with haemorrhagic shock due to pelvic fracture in Korean regional trauma centres: a multi-institutional trial[J]. Injury, 2022, 53(2): 488-495. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2021.12.015 |
[24] | Jarvis S, Kelly M, Mains C, et al. A descriptive survey on the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for pelvic fractures at US level Ⅰ trauma centers[J]. Patient Saf Surg, 2019, 13: 43. DOI:10.1186/s13037-019-0223-3 |
[25] | Allen BK, Callaway DW, Gibbs M, et al. Regarding the 'Joint statement from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) regarding the clinical use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA)'[J]. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open, 2018, 3(1): e000168. DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2018-000168 |
[26] | Chang YR, Park CY, Kim DH, et al. A course on endovascular training for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: a pilot study for residents and specialists[J]. Ann Surg Treat Res, 2020, 99(6): 362-369. DOI:10.4174/astr.2020.99.6.362 |
[27] | Asmar S, Bible L, Chehab M, et al. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta vs pre-peritoneal packing in patients with pelvic fracture[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2021, 232(1): 17-26.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.08.763 |
[28] | Thrailkill MA, Gladin KH, Thorpe CR, et al. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): update and insights into current practices and future directions for research and implementation[J]. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2021, 29(1): 8. DOI:10.1186/s13049-020-00807-9 |
[29] | Ribeiro Junior MAF, Feng CYD, Nguyen ATM, et al. The complications associated with Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA)[J]. World J Emerg Surg, 2018, 13: 20. DOI:10.1186/s13017-018-0181-6 |
[30] | Matsumura Y, Matsumoto J, Kondo H, et al. Fewer REBOA complications with smaller devices and partial occlusion: evidence from a multicentre registry in Japan[J]. Emerg Med J, 2017, 34(12): 793-799. DOI:10.1136/emermed-2016-206383 |
[31] | Forte DM, Do WS, Weiss JB, et al. Titrate to equilibrate and not exsanguinate! Characterization and validation of a novel partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta catheter in normal and hemorrhagic shock conditions[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2019, 87(5): 1015-1025. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000002378 |
[32] | Kuckelman J, Derickson M, Barron M, et al. Efficacy of intermittent versus standard resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in a lethal solid organ injury model[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2019, 87(1): 9-17. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000002307 |
[33] | Brännström A, Hultström M, Gustavsson J, et al. Intermittent thoracic resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta improves renal function compared to 60 min continuous application after porcine classⅢ hemorrhage[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2023, 49(3): 1303-1313. DOI:10.1007/s00068-022-02189-2 |
[34] | Madurska MJ, McLenithan A, Scalea TM, et al. A feasibility study of partial REBOA data in a high-volume trauma center[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2022, 48(1): 299-305. DOI:10.1007/s00068-020-01561-4 |
[35] | Matsumura Y, Higashi A, Izawa Y, et al. Distal pressure monitoring and titration with percent balloon volume: feasible management of partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (P-REBOA)[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2021, 47(4): 1023-1029. DOI:10.1007/s00068-019-01257-4 |
[36] | Williams TK, Neff LP, Tibbits EM, et al. A novel automated endovascular variable aortic control device to expand function of standard REBOA catheters[J]. J Endovasc Resusc Trauma Manag, 2019, 3(1): 3-10. DOI:10.26676/jevtm.v3i1.65 |
[37] | Williams TK, Tibbits EM, Hoareau GL, et al. Endovascular variable aortic control (EVAC) versus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in a swine model of hemorrhage and ischemia reperfusion injury[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2018, 85(3): 519-526. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000002008 |
[38] | 罗家柳, 唐良晟, 陈登, 等. 多发伤后不同时期休克发生类型及特征的回顾性研究[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2023, 01: 70-75. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2023.01.012 |
[39] | Ando H, Kaszynski RH, Goto H. On-site placement of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in a hemorrhagic shock patient: a successful endeavor involving long-distance air transport[J]. Am J Emerg Med, 2022, 55: 227.e1-227227.e3. DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.055 |
[40] | Galvagno SM Jr, Nahmias JT, Young DA. Advanced trauma life support® update 2019: management and applications for adults and special populations[J]. Anesthesiol Clin, 2019, 37(1): 13-32. DOI:10.1016/j.anclin.2018.09.009 |
[41] | 石爱丽, 蔡文伟, 程玲灵, 等. 创伤急救数字化绿色通道平台构建与应用研究[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2023, 32(9): 1264-1267. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2023.09.023 |
[42] | Ramzee AF, El-Menyar A, Asim M, et al. The impact of emergency department length of stay on the outcomes of trauma patients requiring hospitalization: a retrospective observational study[J]. World J Emerg Med, 2023, 14(2): 96-105. DOI:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2023.016 |