首页> 外文期刊>European spine journal >Is closed-suction drainage necessary after intradural primary spinal cord tumor surgery?
【24h】

Is closed-suction drainage necessary after intradural primary spinal cord tumor surgery?

机译:硬膜内原发性脊髓肿瘤手术后是否需要进行闭式引流?

获取原文
       

摘要

PurposeThe efficacy of closed-suction drainage in primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery has not been addressed. We investigated whether closed-suction drainage is essential after primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery.MethodsFrom January 2003 to October 2011, 169 consecutive patients with primary intradural spinal cord tumors operated by a single surgeon were selected. Closed-suction drainage was inserted in patients before August 2007, but was not used after August 2007. After removal of tumor and meticulous hemostasis, the opened dura was closed and made watertight using 4-0 silk with interrupt suture and 1.0?cm3 of surgical glue was applied in common. Closed-suction drainage was inserted below the muscular fascia in 75 patients (group I, M:F?=?39:36; 46.20?±?15.63?years) and was not inserted in 94 patients (group II, M:F?=?46:48; 51.05?±?14.89?years).ResultsNeurological deficit precluding ambulation did not occur in all patients. Between group I and II, there were no significant differences in body mass index (22.75?±?3.16 vs. 23.51?±?3.22?kg/m2; p?=?0.13), laminectomy level (2.45?±?1.46 vs. 2.33?±?1.91; p?=?0.65), operation time (260.65?±?109.08 vs. 231.52?±?90.08?min; p?=?0.06), estimated intraoperative blood loss (456.93?±?406.62 vs. 383.94?±?257.25?cm3; p?=?0.18), and hospital stay period (9.25?±?5.01 vs. 9.35?±?5.75?days; p?=?0.91). Two patients in group I underwent revision surgery due to wound problems, while revision surgery was not performed in group II (p?=?0.20).ConclusionClosed-suction drainage may not be essential after primary intradural spinal cord tumor surgery...
机译:目的尚未解决闭合抽吸引流在硬脑膜内脊髓肿瘤手术中的疗效。方法:从2003年1月至2011年10月,选择了由单名外科医生连续手术的169例原发性硬脑膜内脊髓肿瘤患者。于2007年8月之前在患者中插入了封闭抽吸引流,但在2007年8月之后不再使用。在切除肿瘤并进行了细致的止血后,将闭合的硬脑膜封闭,并使用4-0丝线,间断缝合线和1.0?cm3的手术水密性胶水使用普遍。 75例(I组,M:F?=?39:36; 46.20?±?15.63?岁)的患者在肌肉筋膜下方插入了闭式引流,而94例(II组,M:F?)未插入。 =?46:48; 51.05?±?14.89?岁)。结果并非所有患者均发生神经功能缺损(包括下肢活动)。在第一和第二组之间,体重指数(22.75±3.16 vs. 23.51±3.22kg / m2;p≤0.13),椎板切除术水平(2.45±1.46 vs.1.43)没有显着差异。 2.33±±1.91; p = 0.65),手术时间(260.65±±109.08 vs. 231.52±±90.08μmin; p = 0.06),术中估计失血量(456.93±±406.62 vs. 383.94±±257.25μcm3; p = 0.18)和住院时间(9.25±5.01与9.35±5.75天; p = 0.91)。 I组的两名患者因伤口问题而接受了翻修手术,而II组未进行翻修手术(p?=?0.20)。

著录项

  • 来源
    《European spine journal》 |2013年第3期|共7页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类 外科学;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 10:26:24

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号