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

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Global Spine J ; 11(1): 13-20, 2021 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32875844

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of bacterial infection, with the use of a contaminant control, in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: After institutional review board approval, patients undergoing elective ACDF were prospectively enrolled. Samples of the longus colli muscle and disc tissue were obtained. The tissue was then homogenized, gram stained, and cultured in both aerobic and anaerobic medium. Patients were classified into 4 groups depending on culture results. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative factors were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were enrolled, 41.7% were males with an average age of 54 ± 11 years and a body mass index of 29.7 ± 5.9 kg/m2. Seventeen patients (17.7%) were considered true positives, having a negative control and positive disc culture. Otherwise, no significant differences in culture positivity was found between groups of patients. However, our results show that patients were more likely to have both control and disc negative than being a true positive (odds ratio = 6.2, 95% confidence interval = 2.5-14.6). Propionibacterium acnes was the most commonly identified bacteria. Two patients with disc positive cultures returned to the operating room secondary to pseudarthrosis; however, age, body mass index, prior spine surgery or injection, postoperative infection, and reoperations were not associated with culture results. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, the prevalence of subclinical bacterial infection in patients undergoing ACDF was 17.7%. While our rates exclude patients with positive contaminant control, the possibility of contamination of disc cultures could not be entirely rejected. Overall, culture results did not have any influence on postoperative outcomes.

2.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 4(1): e000351, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31799416

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Gunshot wounds to the brain (GSWB) confer high lethality and uncertain recovery. It is unclear which patients benefit from aggressive resuscitation, and furthermore whether patients with GSWB undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have potential for survival or organ donation. Therefore, we sought to determine the rates of survival and organ donation, as well as identify factors associated with both outcomes in patients with GSWB undergoing CPR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study at 25 US trauma centers including dates between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017. Patients were included if they suffered isolated GSWB and required CPR at a referring hospital, in the field, or in the trauma resuscitation room. Patients were excluded for significant torso or extremity injuries, or if pregnant. Binomial regression models were used to determine predictors of survival/organ donation. RESULTS: 825 patients met study criteria; the majority were male (87.6%) with a mean age of 36.5 years. Most (67%) underwent CPR in the field and 2.1% (n=17) survived to discharge. Of the non-survivors, 17.5% (n=141) were considered eligible donors, with a donation rate of 58.9% (n=83) in this group. Regression models found several predictors of survival. Hormone replacement was predictive of both survival and organ donation. CONCLUSION: We found that GSWB requiring CPR during trauma resuscitation was associated with a 2.1% survival rate and overall organ donation rate of 10.3%. Several factors appear to be favorably associated with survival, although predictions are uncertain due to the low number of survivors in this patient population. Hormone replacement was predictive of both survival and organ donation. These results are a starting point for determining appropriate treatment algorithms for this devastating clinical condition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA