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.
Nutr Clin Pract ; 27(3): 422-5, 2012 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22523159

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics, peristomal infection is the most common complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A new glycerin hydrogel (GHG) wound dressing has been proposed to possess more effective antimicrobial properties but has not been tested in a larger trial. The aim of the study was therefore to assess the superiority of GHG regarding the incidence of peristomal wound infections during a 30-day postprocedure follow-up. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with cancer undergoing PEG were recruited from 1 university and 2 general hospitals between January 2007 and December 2008. Patients were randomized to group 1 (34 patients), which received GHG, or group 2 (34 patients), which received a traditional wound dressing. Dressing changes were done at day 1 and weeks 1, 2, and 4 (group 1) vs daily changes during week 1 and at weeks 2 and 4 (group 2). The PEG site was assessed by using 2 different infection scores. RESULTS: At the end of the first and second weeks, a statistically significant reduction of the mean infection scores was seen in patients with GHG wound dressings (first week: 1.64 ± 1.6 vs 3.12 ± 2.69, P < .008; second week: 1.37 ± 1.11 vs 2.53 ± 2.37, P < .02). After 7 days, wound reactions occurred in 14.7% in the GHG group vs 47.05% in the traditional group (p <0.005). The GHG wound dressing required 5 times less frequent dressing changes. CONCLUSION: The GHG wound dressing significantly reduces peristomal wound infections and is a convenient, cost-effective alternative for wound management following PEG.


Asunto(s)
Vendas Hidrocoloidales , Gastrostomía , Glicerol , Estomas Quirúrgicos/microbiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Anciano , Infecciones Bacterianas/epidemiología , Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos
2.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 67(4): 620-8, 2008 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18374024

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Peristomal infections are the most common complications of PEG, despite prophylactic antibiotics. The "introducer" PEG-placement technique avoids the sojourn of a PEG catheter through the oropharynx, and hence minimizes the chances of infectious complications. Despite the obvious potential advantage, this technique failed to gain popularity, mainly as a result of other associated risks and complications. Recently, a modified introducer endoscopic PEG-gastropexy technique was shown to be quite safe. The present study is the first study that evaluated the need of prophylactic antibiotics for "introducer" PEG. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of peristomal wound infections during the immediate 7-day postprocedure follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTINGS: Multicenter; a university tertiary-care hospital and a private practice endoscopy clinic. PATIENTS: A total of 633 patients undergoing PEG were assessed for inclusion. Ninety-seven patients who had malignant stenotic oropharyngeal stricture were randomized: group I (49 patients) received prophylactic ceftriaxone, and group II (48 patients) received a placebo. Both groups were similar in patient characteristics. INTERVENTIONS: Introducer PEG was performed by using the Freka Pexact-15 CH/FR, with the gastric wall nonsurgically sutured to the anterior abdominal wall by use of an endoscope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The peristomal area was assessed daily for 7 days by using 2 different types of infection scores. RESULTS: Clinically significant wound reaction was observed in 1 patient in each group. Wound infection scores were marginally higher in the placebo group, but the differences in the values of infection scores between both the groups were not statistically significant during the 7-day post-PEG follow-up. LIMITATIONS: The introducer gastropexy kit is 5 times more expensive than the "pull" PEG. CONCLUSIONS: The new introducer PEG-gastropexy technique can be performed safely, without prophylactic antibiotics in patients potentially at high risk of peristomal infectious complications (those with advanced oropharyngeal malignancy) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00375414).


Asunto(s)
Profilaxis Antibiótica , Nutrición Enteral/instrumentación , Estenosis Esofágica/cirugía , Gastroscopios , Gastrostomía/instrumentación , Anciano , Contraindicaciones , Método Doble Ciego , Diseño de Equipo , Seguridad de Equipos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...