...
首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Neurology International >Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone
【24h】

Tisseel does not reduce postoperative drainage, length of stay, and transfusion requirements for lumbar laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion versus laminectomy alone

机译:Tisseel不能减少非器械融合与单独椎板切除术的腰椎椎板切除术的术后引流,住院时间和输血需求

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: Typically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay (LOS) for patients with versus without excess bleeding (e.g. who did not receive Tisseel) undergoing multilevel laminectomies with 1-2 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF).[ 6 ] Methods: Here Tisseel was utilized to promote hemostasis for two populations; 39 patients undergoing average 4.4 level lumbar laminectomies with average 1.3 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF), and 48 patients undergoing average 4.0 level laminectomies alone (Lam). We compared the average operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for the LamF versus Lam groups. Results: The average operative times, EBL, postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements were all greater for LamF versus Lam patients; operative times (4.1 vs. 3.0 h), average EBL (192.3 vs. 147.9 cc), drainage (e.g. day 1; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc; day 2; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc), average LOS (4.6 vs. 2.5 days), and transfusion requirements (11 LamF patients; 18 Units [U] RBC versus 2 Lam patients; 3 U RBC). Conclusions: Utilizing Tisseel to facilitate hemostasis in LamF versus Lam still resulted in greater operative times, EBL, postoperative average drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for patients undergoing the noninstrumented fusions. Although Tisseel decreases back bleeding within the spinal canal, it does not reduce blood loss from LamF decorticated transverse processes.
机译:背景:通常,在脊柱外科手术期间,使用纤维蛋白密封剂(FSs)和纤维蛋白胶(FGs)来加强硬膜修复。 2014年,爱泼斯坦证明,一名FS / FG的Tisseel(Baxter International Inc.,美国加利福尼亚州西湖村的Baxter International Inc.)使有出血或无出血的患者(例如[6]方法:此处使用Tisseel来促进两个人群的止血;不接受Tisseel)进行1-2级非器械融合(LamF)的多级椎板切开术。 39例接受了平均1.3级非器械融合术(LamF)的平均腰椎切开术,而48例仅接受了平均4.0级腰椎切开术(Lam)的患者。我们比较了LamF和Lam组的平均手术时间,估计失血量(EBL),术后引流,LOS和输血需求。结果:与Lam患者相比,LamF患者的平均手术时间,EBL,术后引流,LOS和输血要求均更高。手术时间(4.1 vs. 3.0 h),平均EBL(192.3 vs. 147.9 cc),引流(例如第1天; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc;第2天; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc),平均LOS(4.6 vs. 2.5天) )和输血要求(11例LamF患者; 18单位[U] RBC与2例Lam患者; 3 U RBC)。结论:使用Tisseel促进LamF与Lam止血相比,非器械融合患者仍需要更长的手术时间,EBL,术后平均引流,LOS和输血需求。尽管Tisseel减少了椎管内的背部出血,但它并没有减少LamF去皮横向过程的失血量。

著录项

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