Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Hosp Infect ; 145: 187-192, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38272123

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The use of closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) has increased in the last decade across surgical fields, including colectomy. AIM: To compare postoperative outcomes associated with use of iNPWT following open colectomy from a large national database. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent operations from 2015 to 2020 was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Targeted Colectomy Database. Intraoperative placement of iNPWT was identified in patients undergoing open abdominal operations with closure of all wound layers including skin. Propensity score matching was performed to define a control group who underwent closure of all wound layers without iNPWT. Patients were matched in a 1:4 (iNPWT vs control) ratio and postoperative rates of superficial, deep and organ-space surgical site infection (SSI), wound disruption, and readmission. FINDINGS: A matched cohort of 1884 was selected. Patients with iNPWT had longer median operative time (170 (interquartile range: 129-232) vs 161 (114-226) min; P<0.05). Compared to patients without iNPWT, patients with iNPWT experienced a lower rate of 30-day superficial incisional SSI (3% vs 7%; P<0.05) and readmissions (10% vs 14%; P<0.05). iNPWT did not decrease risk of deep SSI, organ-space SSI, or wound disruption. CONCLUSION: Although there is a slightly increased operative time, utilization of iNPWT in open colectomy is associated with lower odds of superficial SSI and 30-day readmission. This suggests that iNPWT should be routinely utilized in open colon surgery to improve patient outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Terapia de Presión Negativa para Heridas , Herida Quirúrgica , Humanos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Colectomía/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Colon/cirugía
2.
Hernia ; 28(1): 97-107, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37648895

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Literature on one- versus two-staged abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with complex gastrointestinal reconstruction (GIR) is limited to single-arm case series with a focus on patients who complete all planned stages. Herein, we describe our experience with both one- and two-staged approaches to AWR/GIR, with attention to those who did not complete both intended stages. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to identify patients who underwent a one- or two-stage approach to GIR/AWR from 2013 to 2020. The one-stage approach included GIR and definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. The two-stage approach included Stage 1 (S1)-GIR and non-definitive herniorrhaphy and Stage 2 (S2)-definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent GIR/AWR: 20 (37.0%) underwent a planned 1-stage operation while 34 (63.0%) underwent S1 of a planned 2-stage approach. Patients assigned to the 2-stage approach were more likely to be smokers, have a history of mesh infection, have an enterocutaneous fistula, and a contaminated wound class (p<0.05). Of the 34 patients who underwent S1, 12 (35.3%) completed S2 during the mean follow-up period of 44 months while 22 (64.7%) did not complete S2. Of these, 10 (45.5%) developed hernia recurrence but did not undergo S2 secondary to elective nonoperative management (40%), pending preoperative optimization (30%), additional complex GIR (10%), hernia-related incarceration requiring emergent surgery (10%), or unrelated death (10%). No differences in outcome including SSI, SSO, readmission, and recurrence were noted between the 12 patients who completed the two-stage approach and the 20 patients who completed a one-stage approach, despite increased risk factors for complications in the 2-stage group (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Planned two-stage operations for GIR/AWR may distribute operative complexity and post-operative morbidity into separate surgical interventions. However, many patients may never undergo the intended definitive S2 herniorrhaphy. Future evaluation of 1- versus 2-stage GIR/AWR is needed to clarify indications for each approach. This work must also consider the frequent deviations from intended clinical course demonstrated in this study.


Asunto(s)
Pared Abdominal , Abdominoplastia , Hernia Ventral , Humanos , Pared Abdominal/cirugía , Hernia Ventral/cirugía , Hernia Ventral/etiología , Herniorrafia/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Abdominoplastia/efectos adversos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...