{"title":"应用介入方法控制巨大上肢肿瘤切除术中的失血量。","authors":"Fei Huo, Hansheng Liang, Yi Feng","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02643-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":"343"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection.\",\"authors\":\"Fei Huo, Hansheng Liang, Yi Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-024-02643-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531193/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02643-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02643-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:这项回顾性研究的目的是确定介入方法在控制术中失血方面的效果,并调查围手术期并发症:这项回顾性研究旨在确定介入方法在控制术中失血量方面的疗效,并调查围手术期并发症:方法:回顾性分析了 2008 年至 2022 年间接受手术治疗的 44 例巨大上肢肿瘤患者。其中,29 名患者接受了介入治疗(A 组),15 名患者未接受介入治疗(B 组)。根据介入方法的不同,A 组又被进一步划分:C组(联合球囊闭塞和经动脉栓塞[TAE],n = 11)和D组(单一TAE,n = 18)。在 D 组中,根据 TAE 相对于手术的时间将患者分为 E 组(TAE 与手术在同一天进行)和 F 组(TAE 在手术前几天进行)。我们比较了人口统计学特征、失血量、重症监护室入院率和手术中使用血管加压药的情况:我们收集了 44 名确诊为上肢巨大肿瘤并接受手术的患者的临床记录。分组情况如下A组(29人)、B组(15人)、C组(11人)、D组(18人)、E组(7人)和F组(11人)。介入组和非介入组的肿瘤体积相似(704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127)。B 组的血浆输注量明显高于 A 组(425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml,P = 0.021)。虽然 A 组和 B 组的总失血量没有明显差异(467.93 ± 302.08 毫升 vs 1150 ± 1424.15 毫升,P = 0.087),但 A 组的大量出血率(定义为失血超过 1000 毫升)较低(6.9% vs 46.47%,P = 0.004)。C 组未成年人(18 岁以下患者)的比例明显高于 D 组(27.7% 对 0.00%,P = 0.045)。C 组的红细胞输注量也明显高于 D 组(458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml,P = 0.021)。没有观察到明显的围手术期并发症:结论:介入技术可减少上肢大肿瘤患者的失血量和输血必要性。此外,未观察到明显的围手术期并发症。
The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection.
Background: The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.
Methods: The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.
Results: We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.
Conclusions: Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.