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










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg ; 37(5): 462-464, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33481535

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infection in nonoperative orbital fractures is controversial, with limited high-quality evidence and inconsistent recommendations in the current scientific literature. Our primary study objective was to identify the prophylactic antibiotic prescribing pattern at our institution for nonoperative orbital fractures and to determine the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 16 years of data from a single institution on patients with acute traumatic fractures of the orbital floor or medial orbital wall. Prophylactic administration of antibiotics and complication rates were evaluated, and complication rates and patient characteristics analyzed. RESULTS: Of 154 patients with nonoperative orbital fractures, 17 patients (group 1) received IV or oral antibiotics and 137 patients (group 2) did not. No patient in either group had documented infectious orbital complications following their orbital injury. Patients receiving antibiotics were more likely to have a concurrent periorbital laceration (58.8% ± 11.9% vs. 28.5% ± 3.9%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We present the largest cohort yet reported of patients managed without antibiotic prophylaxis for nonoperative orbital fractures, with no infectious complications identified. Currently there is no evidence of utility to prophylactic antibiotics in the setting of nonoperative traumatic orbital fractures. Rather than prescribing antibiotics, we recommend clinicians educate patients on return precautions and offer close follow up for the rare, but potentially severe infectious complications of orbital trauma.


Assuntos
Antibioticoprofilaxia , Fraturas Orbitárias , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Fraturas Orbitárias/complicações , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
Ear Nose Throat J ; 100(5_suppl): 427S-430S, 2021 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31631678

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To quantify differences in waste and cost of disposable equipment between different tonsillectomy techniques. METHODS: Prospective study of waste attributable to disposable waste produced by tonsillectomy surgery. Disposable equipment required for tonsillectomy using cold, monopolar electrocautery (ME), and coblation techniques was measured; and differences in mass, volume, and cost of equipment between the 3 techniques were quantified. RESULTS: Cold technique was found to produce the least waste and have the lowest cost attributable to disposable surgical equipment. Projected single-case savings in mass and volume of waste resulting from using cold technique compared to ME were 1.272 kg and 1.013 L, respectively, and 1.043 kg and 1.723 L compared to coblation. Projected single-case savings in cost of disposable equipment for cold technique compared to ME were US$9.35 and US$185.05 compared to coblation. DISCUSSION: Using cold technique for adult tonsillectomy reduces waste and cost of disposable equipment compared to ME and coblation. Implications for Practice: Surgeons desiring to reduce cost and waste associated with tonsillectomy surgery may consider transitioning to cold technique.


Assuntos
Criocirurgia/economia , Criocirurgia/estatística & dados numéricos , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Resíduos de Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Tonsilectomia/métodos , Adulto , Criocirurgia/métodos , Equipamentos Descartáveis/economia , Equipamentos Descartáveis/estatística & dados numéricos , Eletrocoagulação/economia , Eletrocoagulação/métodos , Humanos , Resíduos de Serviços de Saúde/economia , Estudos Prospectivos , Tonsilectomia/economia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...