Skip to main content

Initial Resection of Potentially Viable Tissue is not Optimal Treatment for Grades II–IV Pancreatic Injuries

World Journal of Surgery volume 33, pages 221–227 (2009)Cite this article

An Erratum to this article was published on 04 December 2008

An Erratum to this article was published on 04 December 2008

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to ascertain the optimal therapy and diagnostics for children with pancreatic injury.

Methods

From January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2007, all children (newborn to 17 years) who presented to this Level I trauma center with demonstrated pancreatic injury were prospectively entered into the TRACS IV system and reviewed for injury type, diagnostics, therapy, demographics, and outcome.

Results

Fourteen children sustained grade II or higher pancreatic injury during this period. CT scan was performed for diagnosis in all cases. There were 11 boys and 3 girls, and mean age was 6.9 (range, 2–16) years. There were five grade II injuries, four grade III injuries, four grade IV injuries, and one grade V injury. All grade II injuries were treated successfully nonoperatively with observation. The nine grade III–IV injuries all underwent operative external drainage without pancreatectomy or stent placement. The single grade V injury died of multiple associated injuries after operative intervention. No pseudocysts developed in these children. All children have normal pancreatic function, and all except one have normal anatomy on follow-up scans. Early exploration and drainage directly reduces length of stay.

Conclusion

Grade II pancreatic injuries do not require routine surgical exploration in children. Grade III and IV injuries in this series were treated with expeditious drainage of the pancreatic bed and did not require routine pancreatectomy or endoscopic stint placement as some have recommended. Early drainage shortens hospital stay, and outcomes from this therapy are excellent. Pancreatic resection of exocrine defunctionalized segments of pancreas may be performed safely electively after acute injury if necessary, but anecdotal information from this series indicates that too may not be necessary. Grade V injuries often are accompanied by multiple other organ injuries and are associated with a significant mortality rate. A multi-institutional investigation is warranted to reassess optimal therapy for pancreatic injury in children.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Mattix KD, Tataria M, Holmes J et al (2007) Pediatric pancreatic trauma: predictors of nonoperative management failure and associated outcomes. J Pediatr Surg 42:340–344

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacombs ASW, Wines M et al (2004) Pancreatic trauma in children. J Pediatr Surg 39:96–99

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jurkovich GJ, Carrico CJ (1994) Pancreatic trauma. Surg Clin North Am 70:575–593

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shilyanksy J, Sena LM et al (1998) Nonoperative management of pancreatic injuries in children. J Pediatr Surg 33:343–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Firstenberg MS, Volsko TA et al (1999) Selective management of pediatric pancreatic injuries. J Pediatr Surg 34:1142–1147

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Adamson WT, Herba A et al (2003) Serum amylase and lipase alone are not cost-effective screening methods for pediatric pancreatic trauma. J Pediatr Surg 38:354–357

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore EE, Cogbill TH et al (1990) Organ injury scaling, II: pancreas, duodenum, small bowel, colon and rectum. J Trauma 30:1472–1479

    Google Scholar 

  8. Akhrass R, Yaffe MB et al (1997) Pancreatic trauma: a ten-year multi-institutional experience. Am Surg 63:598–604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Meier DE, Coln CD et al (2001) Early operation in children with pancreas transection. J Pediatr Surg 36:341–344

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Canty TG, Weinman D (2001) Treatment of pancreatic duct disruption in children by an endoscopically paced stent. J Pediatr Surg 36:345–348

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rescorla FJ, Cory D, Vane DW et al (1990) Failure of percutaneous drainage in children with traumatic pancreatic pseudocysts. J Pediatr Surg 25:1038–1042

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Graham CA, O’Toole SJ et al (2000) Pancreatic trauma in Scottish children. J R Coll Surg Edinb 45:223–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Keller MS, Stafford PW, Vane DW (1997) Conservative management of pancreatic trauma in children. J Trauma 42:1097–1100

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kouchi K, Tanabe M et al (1999) Nonoperative management of blunt pancreatic injury in childhood. J Pediatr Surg 34:1736–1739

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wales PW, Shuckett B et al (2001) Long-term outcome after non-operative management of complete traumatic pancreatic transaction in children. J Pediatr Surg 36:823–827

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burnweit C, Wesson D et al (1990) Percutaneous drainage of traumatic pancreatic pseudocysts in children. J Trauma 30:1273–1277

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gorenstein A, O’Halpin D et al (1987) Blunt injury to the pancreas in children. J Pediatr Surg 22:1110–1116

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jobst M, Canty T et al (1999) Management of pancreatic injury in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma. J Pediatr Surg 34:818–824

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stringer MD (2005) Pancreatic trauma in children. Br J Surg 92:467–470

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall RI, Lavelle MI et al (1986) Use of ERCP to identify the site of traumatic injuries of the main pancreatic duct in children. Br J Surg 73:411–412

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith SD, Nakayama DK et al (1988) Pancreatic injuries in childhood due to blunt trauma. J Pediatr Surg 23:610–614

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McGahren Ed, Magnuson D et al (1995) Management of transected pancreas in children. Aust NZ J Surg 65:242–246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nadler EP, Gardner M et al (1999) Management of blunt pancreatic injury in children. J Trauma 47(6):1098–1108

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wind P, Tiret E et al (1999) Contribution of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in management of complications following distal pancreatic trauma. Am Surg 65:777–783

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Arkovitz MS, Johnson N et al (1997) Pancreatic trauma in children: mechanism of injury. J Trauma 42:49–53

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim HS, Lee DK et al (2001) The role of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in the treatment of traumatic pancreatic duct injury. Gastrointest Endosc 54:49–55

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Holland AJ, Davery RB et al (1999) Traumatic pancreatitis: long-term review of initial nonoperative management in children. J Pediatr Child Health 35:78–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bosboom D, Braam AWE et al (2006) The role of imaging studies in pancreatic injury due to blunt abdominal trauma. Eur J Radiol 59:3–7

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Houben CH, Ade-Ajayi N et al (2007) Traumatic pancreatic duct injury in children: minimally invasive approach to management. J Pediatr Surg 42:629–635

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bouwman DL et al (1984) Serum amylase and its isoenzymes: a clarification of their implication in trauma. J Trauma 24:573–578

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Takahashi M et al (1980) Hyperamylasemia in critically injured patients. J Trauma 20:951–955

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Vermont Children’s Hospital, University of Vermont College of Medicine, FAHC, 267 FL4, MC Campus, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA

    Dennis W. Vane, Armin Kiankhooy, Kennith H. Sartorelli & Jerrie L. Vane

Authors
  1. Dennis W. Vane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Kiankhooy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kennith H. Sartorelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jerrie L. Vane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis W. Vane.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9779-2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vane, D.W., Kiankhooy, A., Sartorelli, K.H. et al. Initial Resection of Potentially Viable Tissue is not Optimal Treatment for Grades II–IV Pancreatic Injuries. World J Surg 33, 221–227 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9569-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9569-x

Keywords

  • Lipase
  • Percutaneous Drainage
  • Pancreatic Injury
  • External Drainage
  • Injury Grade