Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Colorectal Dis ; 18(7): O260-6, 2016 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27178168

RESUMEN

AIM: The perineal wound following abdominoperineal excision (APR) is associated with a high complication rate. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for wound complications and examine the effect of flap reconstruction on wound healing. METHOD: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was searched for patients who underwent APR for rectal adenocarcinoma. They were divided into two groups: primary closure of the perineal wound and flap reconstruction. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for deep surgical site infection (SSI) and wound dehiscence. RESULTS: A total of 8449 (94%) patients from the database underwent primary closure and 550 (6%) underwent flap reconstruction. Patients who underwent flap reconstruction had a longer operation time, a higher incidence of deep SSI, wound dehiscence, more blood transfusion requirement and a higher rate of return to the operating room (all P < 0.001). Risk factors for deep SSI were African American race (OR 1.5, P = 0.02), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification ≥ 4 (OR 3.2, P < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg/m(2) (OR 1.7, P = 0.006), weight loss (OR 2, P < 0.001) and closure with a flap (OR 1.9, P < 0.001). Risk factors for wound dehiscence included ASA classification ≥ 4 (OR 2.2, P = 0.003), history of smoking (OR 2.2, P < 0.001), history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.7, P = 0.03), BMI ≥ 35 kg/m(2) (OR 1.9, P = 0.001) and closure with a flap (OR 2.9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perineal wound complications are related to a patient's race, ASA classification, smoking, obesity and weight loss. Compared with primary closure, closure with a flap was associated with higher odds of wound infection and dehiscence and was not protective of wound complications in the presence of other risk factors. Therefore optimizing the patient's medical condition will lead to a better outcome irrespective of the technique used for perineal wound closure.


Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica/efectos adversos , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Colgajos Quirúrgicos/efectos adversos , Dehiscencia de la Herida Operatoria/etiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/etiología , Abdomen/cirugía , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Perineo/cirugía , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Br J Surg ; 103(5): 564-71, 2016 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26859713

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been associated with improved perioperative outcomes following several surgical procedures. Less is known, however, regarding their use following hepatic surgery. METHODS: An evidence-based, standardized perioperative care pathway was developed and implemented prospectively among patients undergoing open liver surgery between 1 January 2014 and 31 July 2015. Perioperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and healthcare costs, were compared between groups of patients who had surgery before and after introduction of the ERAS pathway. Provider perceptions regarding the perioperative pathway were assessed using an online questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient or disease characteristics between pre-ERAS (42 patients) and post-ERAS (75) groups. Although mean pain scores were comparable between the two groups, patients treated within the ERAS pathway had a marked reduction in opioid use on the first 3 days after surgery compared with those treated before introduction of the pathway (all P < 0·001). Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the post-ERAS group (median 5 (i.q.r. 4-7) days versus 6 (5-7) days in the pre-ERAS group; P = 0·037) and there was a lower incidence of postoperative complications (1 versus 10 per cent; P = 0·036). Implementation of the ERAS pathway was associated with a 40·7 per cent decrease in laboratory costs (-US $333; -€306, exchange rate 4 January 2016) and a 21·5 per cent reduction in medical supply costs (-US $394; -€362) per patient. Although 91·0 per cent of providers endorsed the ERAS pathway, 33·8 per cent identified provider aversion to a standardized protocol as the greatest hurdle to implementation. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a multimodal ERAS programme following open liver surgery was associated with a reduction in opioid use, shorter hospital stay and decreased hospital costs. ERAS was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of providers.


Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Hepatectomía , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Atención Perioperativa/normas , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Hepatectomía/economía , Hepatectomía/métodos , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/economía , Masculino , Maryland , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Atención Perioperativa/economía , Atención Perioperativa/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/economía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...