魯曉嵐 內(nèi)田英二 橫室茂樹 相本隆幸 中村慶春 田尻孝
·論著·
各型胰腺假性囊腫的治療策略及預(yù)后判斷
魯曉嵐 內(nèi)田英二 橫室茂樹 相本隆幸 中村慶春 田尻孝
目的分析各種急性和慢性胰腺假性囊腫(PPs)的特征和預(yù)后,探討侵入性治療PPs的預(yù)測因子。方法回顧性分析1995年1月至2004年12月日本醫(yī)科大學(xué)診治的36例PPs患者的臨床資料。將患者分成急性胰腺炎并發(fā)的PPs自發(fā)緩解組(急性緩解組);急性胰腺炎并發(fā)的PPs癥狀持續(xù)或有并發(fā)癥需要侵入治療組(急性治療組);慢性胰腺炎并發(fā)的PPs自發(fā)緩解組(慢性緩解組)和慢性胰腺炎并發(fā)的PPs癥狀持續(xù)或有并發(fā)癥需要侵入治療組(慢性治療組),每組9例。結(jié)果36例患者中,女性13例,男性23例。胰腺炎病因:酒精性18例(50.0%),膽源性8例(22.2%),其他原因10例(27.8%)。平均隨訪時(shí)間(24.2±18.5)個(gè)月。絕大多數(shù)囊腫(32/36,88.9%)與主胰管不相交通;各組囊腫數(shù)量、部位均無顯著差異;慢性緩解組囊腫直徑最小,均lt;4 cm,顯著小于其他3組(Plt;0.05);兩緩解組的囊腫多數(shù)無增大,而兩治療組的囊腫絕大多數(shù)有增大;急性治療組中4例(44.4%)囊壁增厚(gt;2~3 cm),慢性治療組中1例(11.1%)囊壁增厚,余囊壁正常。急性PPs的病因多為膽源性,多數(shù)位于胰尾,而且這些患者的體表指數(shù)、囊腫大小、確診時(shí)有PPs相關(guān)癥狀的例數(shù)均顯著高于慢性PPs。結(jié)論隨訪期間PPs體積增大強(qiáng)烈提示需要侵入治療。慢性PPs囊腫直徑lt;4 cm是預(yù)后良好的指標(biāo),急性PPs直徑lt;8 cm是自然消退的指標(biāo)。
胰腺炎; 胰腺假性囊腫; 治療; 預(yù)測
胰腺假性囊腫(pancreatic pseudocysts,PPs)是急、慢性胰腺炎和創(chuàng)傷后胰腺炎的一個(gè)主要并發(fā)癥。PPs或自然消退,或引起持續(xù)的癥狀和并發(fā)癥。PPs治療可選擇外科手術(shù)、體外引流和內(nèi)鏡下引流,也可以選擇非侵入性治療。因此,對PPs的個(gè)性化治療至關(guān)重要。目前PPs的診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)很不統(tǒng)一,且很多因素都可能影響PPs的轉(zhuǎn)歸[1-2],以致我們有效選擇最合適的治療很困難。鑒于許多報(bào)道都沒有很好地區(qū)分急性和慢性PPs[3],而這兩者的病程不同[4-5],故本文分析急、慢性PPs各自的特征和預(yù)后,為選擇不同治療方法尋找預(yù)測因素。
一、臨床資料
選取1995年1月至2004年12月期間在東京日本醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬醫(yī)院治療的36例PPs患者。根據(jù)亞特蘭大制定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),急性胰腺炎后胰液積聚持續(xù)6周以上并被纖維組織或肉芽組織包裹、在疼痛出現(xiàn)6周后腹部CT證實(shí)的囊腫為急性PPs;慢性胰腺炎后胰液積聚并被纖維組織或肉芽組織包裹而缺乏急性胰腺炎證據(jù)的為慢性PPs。慢性胰腺炎的診斷包括反復(fù)發(fā)作的腹痛加上影像學(xué)證實(shí)有胰腺鈣化、主胰管擴(kuò)張或胰腺實(shí)質(zhì)的萎縮;急性胰腺炎的診斷包括胰性疼痛,伴有血清胰淀粉酶和(或)脂肪酶超過正常上限3倍,影像學(xué)有急性胰腺炎征象,或外科證實(shí)有胰性感染存在。
通過復(fù)習(xí)患者的完整資料將患者分為4組,每組9例。急性緩解組:急性PPs患者,囊腫未經(jīng)治療自然消退;急性治療組:急性PPs患者,但癥狀持續(xù)或并發(fā)相關(guān)并發(fā)癥需要手術(shù)(2例)、經(jīng)皮穿刺或內(nèi)鏡下引流治療(7例);慢性緩解組:慢性PPs患者,囊腫自然消退;慢性治療組:慢性PPs患者,癥狀持續(xù)或有相關(guān)并發(fā)癥需要手術(shù)(5例)、經(jīng)皮穿刺或內(nèi)鏡下引流治療(4例)。不能明確是急性還是慢性PPs、隨訪期lt;2個(gè)月的、所做手術(shù)與PPs無關(guān)者及出現(xiàn)慢性PPs前有急性胰腺炎發(fā)生史者被排除在外。
二、分析指標(biāo)
分析年齡、性別;既往急性胰腺炎的病因和Ranson評分;PPs相關(guān)癥狀(疼痛加重、發(fā)熱、梗阻的癥狀如嘔吐和黃疸);體表指數(shù)(kg/m2);PPs的最大直徑(多發(fā)囊腫以最大的囊腫直徑計(jì)算);囊腫壁增厚還是正常;囊腫位置、數(shù)量;囊腫與主胰管是否交通;PPs局部和(或)系統(tǒng)并發(fā)癥(感染、梗阻、肝內(nèi)外膽管擴(kuò)張、囊內(nèi)出血、腸系膜靜脈血栓形成、血腫、脾破裂、囊腫破裂、腹水等);主胰管異常(擴(kuò)張、狹窄和鈣化);隨訪期做腹部CT和超聲了解PPs的增大情況。
三、統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)處理
采用SPSS 11.0統(tǒng)計(jì)軟件包進(jìn)行兩獨(dú)立樣本的t檢驗(yàn)和Logistic回歸分析。連續(xù)性資料采用均數(shù)、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差和全距來描述。結(jié)果用雙向P檢驗(yàn),Plt;0.05具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。
一、臨床資料比較
36例患者中男性23例,女性13例,平均年齡為57歲(26~81歲);胰腺炎的病因:酒精性18例(50.0%),膽源性8例(22.2%),其他原因10例(27.8%)。從表1中看出,兩急性組年齡有顯著差異(P=0.011),而兩慢性組間無顯著差異。急性緩解組主要病因是膽源性,急性治療組主要病因是酒精性,差異顯著(P=0.010),而兩慢性組間無顯著差異。兩急性組在確診時(shí)有PPs相關(guān)癥狀者顯著高于兩慢性組(P=0.039)。兩急性組的體表指數(shù)有顯著差異(P=0.026),而兩慢性組間無顯著差異。各組的Ronson評分均無顯著差異。
二、PPs特征比較
從表1中看出,絕大多數(shù)囊腫(32/36,88.9%)與主胰管不相交通;各組囊腫數(shù)量、部位均無顯著差異。慢性緩解組囊腫直徑最小,均lt;4 cm,顯著小于其他3組(Plt;0.05),而兩急性組間無顯著差異;兩緩解組的囊腫多數(shù)無增大,而兩治療組的囊腫絕大多數(shù)有增大,兩急性組及兩慢性組間差異均顯著(P=0.003,P=0.015);急性治療組中4例(44.4%)囊壁增厚(gt;2~3 cm),慢性緩解組中1例(11.1%)囊壁增厚,余囊壁正常,兩急性組間相差顯著(P=0.015)。此外,急性緩解組2例合并主胰管狹窄,急性治療組5例、慢性緩解組4例、慢性治療組6例出現(xiàn)主胰管狹窄、擴(kuò)張或鈣化、截?cái)唷?/p>
三、并發(fā)癥及預(yù)后的比較
急性緩解組中發(fā)生腹水1例,囊內(nèi)出血1例;急性治療組并發(fā)感染1例,囊內(nèi)出血1例;慢性緩解組發(fā)生囊內(nèi)出血1例;慢性治療組并發(fā)感染2例,黃疸1例。本組平均隨訪(24.2±18.5)個(gè)月。急性緩解組中7例(77.8%)在8周內(nèi)自然消退,1例5個(gè)月后消退,1例24個(gè)月后消退,觀察期內(nèi)均無復(fù)發(fā)。慢性緩解組中7例(77.8%)在8周內(nèi)自然消退,1例10周后消退,1例持續(xù)觀察6個(gè)月未見囊腫縮小;觀察期間2例復(fù)發(fā),其中1例因囊腫出血行經(jīng)皮囊腫穿刺引流術(shù),另1例未作處理,2年后癥狀消失。急性治療組中2例復(fù)發(fā),1例行胰體尾切除術(shù),1例未處理,2個(gè)月后囊腫疼痛消失。所有行手術(shù)治療的患者均無復(fù)發(fā)。全組總復(fù)發(fā)率為11.1%(4/36),其中3例復(fù)發(fā)患者是酒精性胰腺炎,1例病因不明。慢性緩解組中1例1年后死于慢性胰腺炎,余均存活。
表1 各組PPs的臨床特征
注:與急性緩解組比較,aPlt;0.05;與急性治療組比較,bPlt;0.05;與兩慢性組比較,cPlt;0.05;與慢性治療組比較,dPlt;0.05
PPs的轉(zhuǎn)歸可以分為自然消退,囊腫存在但持續(xù)無癥狀、有癥狀和(或)有相關(guān)并發(fā)癥需要治療[6-7]。文獻(xiàn)報(bào)道[8-9], 預(yù)測囊腫自然消退的因素包括PPs的大小、數(shù)量、位置和胰腺炎的病因。但這些研究的組之間缺少同質(zhì)性的評估,結(jié)論難以確定。本研究選擇急性胰腺炎和慢性胰腺炎并發(fā)的PPs各18例,又分為非手術(shù)和手術(shù)(或介入)治療各9例,保證了患者之間的可比性。
本結(jié)果顯示,無論是急性PPs,還是慢性PPs,均可自然消退。兩組的年齡、性別比無顯著差異。自然消退的囊腫多為單發(fā),與主胰管無交通,囊壁正常,無明顯生長。但急性PPs的病因多為膽源性,多數(shù)位于胰尾,而且其患者體表指數(shù)、囊腫大小、確診時(shí)有PPs相關(guān)癥狀的例數(shù)均顯著高于慢性PPs(Plt;0.05)。
囊腫大小通常被認(rèn)為與囊腫發(fā)展關(guān)系最密切。以前多項(xiàng)研究認(rèn)為,囊腫大小是侵入性治療的預(yù)測因素[8,10]。Soliani等[3]和Vitas等[11]認(rèn)為急性PPs比慢性PPs更容易自然消退。Bourliere等[5]認(rèn)為,慢性PPs是不容易自然消退的。Yeo等[12]認(rèn)為,67%慢性PPs,只要囊腫直徑gt;6 cm需要介入治療。Gouyon等[1]報(bào)道,慢性酒精性胰腺炎所致的PPs,直徑lt;4 cm為獨(dú)立預(yù)測因素。本結(jié)果顯示,所有自然消退的慢性PPs的直徑均lt;4 cm,其直徑僅是慢性PPs需介入治療者的一半;直徑gt;6 cm 的大部分慢性PPs最終需要侵入性治療,表明慢性PPs的大小是介入治療的預(yù)測因素。但對急性PPs而言,自然消退的囊腫平均直徑雖小于介入治療者,但仍大于慢性PPs需要介入治療者?;诖?,我們認(rèn)為,慢性PPs囊腫直徑lt;4 cm為預(yù)后良好的指標(biāo),急性PPs直徑lt;8 cm為自然消退的指標(biāo)。此外,在觀察期內(nèi)囊腫增大,不論是急性PPs還是慢性PPs均強(qiáng)烈提示需要侵入性治療,這與 Aranha等[6]的報(bào)道一致。
Nguyen等[8]報(bào)道,膽源性PPs自然消退可能性小。本組18例急性PPs中,膽源性8例,其中6例自然消退,2例手術(shù),與其結(jié)論不一致,但總共4例囊腫持續(xù)存在者卻都是膽源性胰腺炎并發(fā)的。這些差異可能與不同國家、地域有關(guān),也可能受到其他原因影響,需進(jìn)一步研究。
本組中急性PPs自然緩解組患者年齡顯著高于其他組,其中2例出現(xiàn)手術(shù)指證,但由于年齡和健康問題拒絕侵入性治療,結(jié)果經(jīng)非手術(shù)治療囊腫消退,而且也無復(fù)發(fā)。因此,我們認(rèn)為,只要癥狀控制良好,觀察期間囊腫比較穩(wěn)定且無增大的情況下,可以采取非介入治療,年齡不是一個(gè)重要因素。
[1] Gouyon B,Lévy P,Ruszniewski P,et al.Predictive factors in the outcome of pseudocysts complicating alcoholic chronic pancreatitis.Gut,1997,41:821-825.
[2] Andrén-Sandberg A,Dervenis C.Pancreatic pseudocysts in the 21st century.Part Ⅰ:classification,pathophysiology, anatomic considerations and treatment.JOP,2004,5:8-24.
[3] Soliani P,Ziegler S,Franzini C,et al.The size of pancreatic pseudocyst does not influence the outcome of invasive treatments.Dig Liver Dis,2004,36:135-140.
[4] Maringhini A,Uomo G,Patti R,et al.Pseudocysts in acute nonalcoholic pancreatitis: incidence and natural history.Dig Dis Sci,1999,44:1669-1673.
[5] Bourliere M,Sarles H.Pancreatic cysts and pseudocysts associated with acute and chronic pancreatitis.Dig Dis Sci,1989,34:343-348.
[6] Aranha GV,Prinz RA,Esguerra AC,et al.The nature and course of cystic pancreatic lesions diagnosed by ultrasound.Arch Surg,1983,118:486-488.
[7] Tsuei BJ,Schwartz RW.Current management of pancreatic pseudocysts.Curr Surg,2003,60:587-590.
[8] Nguyen BL,Thompson JS,Edney JA,et al.Influence of the etiology of pancreatitis on the natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts.Am J Surg,1991,162:527-531.
[9] Forsmark CE,Grendell J.Complications of pancreatitis.Semin Gastrointest Dis,1991,2:165-176.
[10] D′Egidio A,Schein M.Pancreatic pseudocysts: a proposed classification and its management implications.Br J Surg,1991,78:981-984.
[11] Vitas GJ,Sarr MG.Selected management of pancreatic pseudocysts: operative versus expectant management.Surgery,1992,111:123-130.
[12] Yeo CJ,Bastidas JA,Lynch-Nyhan A,et al.The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts documented by computed tomography.Surg Gynecol Obstet,1990,170:411-417.
2009-06-09)
(本文編輯:呂芳萍)
Managementandprognosticfactorsofpancreaticpseudocysts
LUXiao-lan,UchidaEiji,YokomuroShigeki,NakamuraYoshiharu,AimotoTakayuki,TajiriTakashi.
DepartmentofGastroenterology,SecondAffiliatedHospital,Xi′anJiaotongUniversity,Xi′an710004,China
LUXiao-lan,Email:xiaolan_lu@163.com
ObjectiveTo investigate the characteristics and prognosis of acute and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts and to identify the predictive factors of interventional treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts.MethodsFrom January 1995 to December 2004, 36 patients with pancreatic pseudocysts at Nippon Medical School were studied retrospectively. Group 1 included 9 patients with acute pancreatitis associated pseudocysts which resolved spontaneously. Group 2 included 9 patients with acute pancreatitis associated pseudocysts and symptoms persisted or with complications which requiring interventional treatment. Group 3 included 9 patients with chronic pancreatitis associated pseudocysts which resolved spontaneously. Group 4 included 9 patients with chronic pancreatitis associated pseudocysts with symptoms persisted or with complications which requiring interventional treatment.ResultsAmong the 36 patients, there were 13 women and 23 men. The etiology of pancreatitis due to alcohol was 18(50.0%) cases, biliary tract disease 8(22.2%)cases, others 10(27.8%) cases. The average duration of follow up was (24.2±18.5) months. The majority of pseudocysts (32/36, 88.9%) were not communicated with the main pancreatic duct; the number and location of the 4 groups of pseudocysts were not significantly different; the biggest diameter of pancreatic pseudocysts in group 3 was the smallest, all below 4 cm, which was significantly less than those in other 3 groups (Plt;0.05); the majority of volume of pancreatic pseudocysts in group 1 and 3 was not increased, while it was increased in group 2 and 4.The capsule wall of 4 patients (44.4%) was thickening (gt;2~3 cm) in group 2, the capsule wall of 1 patient (11.1%) was thickening in group 4. The etiology of pseudocysts in group 1 and 2 were mainly biliary and located in the pancreatic tail, meanwhile, the BMI, size of pseudocysts and incidence of complication were significantly higher than those in group 2 and 4.ConclusionsThe increasing in size of pancreatic pseudocysts during follow up is an important factor predicting invasive treatment. A chronic pseudocyst with diameter lt; 4 cm is predictor of excellent prognosis, acute pseudocysts with diameter gt; 8 cm is predictor of spontaneous resolution.
Pancreatitis; Pancreatic pseudocyst; Therapy; Forecasting
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2010.02.002
710004 西安,西安交通大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院消化科(魯曉嵐);日本日本醫(yī)科大學(xué)第一外科(內(nèi)田英二、橫室茂樹、相本隆幸、中村慶春、田尻孝)
魯曉嵐,Email: xiaolan_lu@163.com