首页> 外文期刊>Surgical infections >Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit in Septic Shock?
【24h】

Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit in Septic Shock?

机译:快速源代码控制的剖腹手术:败血症性休克是否有死亡率方面的好处?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: In the 1990s, damage control laparotomy (DCL) became a proved approach to treat intra-abdominal injuries caused by trauma. In the ensuing two decades, this approach has been applied to non-traumatic abdominal processes as well. Although the benefits of DCL are clear, the benefit of rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) for non-traumatic abdominal diseases is much less clear. However, two recent cohort analyses identified significant increases in the mortality rate with RCSL compared with primary fascial closure (PFC). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of RSCL in patients with septic shock. Methods: The 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was queried for 11 International Statistical Classifications of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes associated with septic shock. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), wound class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, number of risk factors, and presence or absence of post-operative pneumonia. The risk factors were diabetes mellitus, alcohol or tobacco abuse, blood dyscrasias, disseminated cancer, and cardiac, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, hepatobiliary, or renal dysfunction. The primary outcomes were rate of re-operation, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, hospital length of stay (LOS), and death by 30 days. Results: The RSCL and PFC cohorts were each comprised of 56 patients matched for propensity scores for ICD-10 code. There were no significant differences in wound or ASA class, BMI, gender, or number of risk factors between the two cohorts. The operative time for RSCL was significantly shorter than for PFC (median 84 vs. 128 min, respectively; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in re-operation rate, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, LOS, or mortality rate between the two cohorts. Conclusions: Although this analysis showed no clear advantage to RSCL in the management of septic shock, it may be a means to salvage certain patients. The best way to assess the relative value of RSCL is a prospective trial.
机译:背景: 在1990年代,损伤控制剖腹术(DCL)成为治疗创伤造成的腹部内损伤的一种行之有效的方法。在随后的二十年中,这种方法也已经应用于非创伤性​​腹部手术。尽管DCL的好处是显而易见的,但对于非创伤性​​腹部疾病而言,快速源控制剖腹术(RSCL)的好处尚不清楚。但是,最近的两项队列分析发现,与原发筋膜闭合术(PFC)相比,RCSL的死亡率显着增加。这项研究的目的是评估RSCL在败血性休克患者中的疗效。 方法: 询问了2015年国家外科手术质量改善项目(NSQIP)数据库,以获取与败血性休克相关的11种国际疾病分类统计代码(ICD)-10。收集的数据包括年龄,性别,体重指数(BMI),伤口类别,美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)类别,手术时间,危险因素数量以及术后是否存在肺炎。危险因素是糖尿病,酗酒或吸烟,血液异常,癌症,心脏,胃肠道,肺,肝胆或肾功能不全。主要结局为再次手术率,术后肺炎患病率,住院时间(LOS)和30天死亡。 结果: RSCL和PFC队列均由56名患者组成,这些患者的ICD-10代码倾向得分匹配。在这两个队列之间,伤口或ASA等级,BMI,性别或危险因素数量无显着差异。 RSCL的手术时间明显短于PFC(中位数分别为84 vs. 128 min; p = 0.002)。两组的再手术率,术后肺炎患病率,LOS或死亡率无显着差异。 结论: 尽管此分析显示RSCL在脓毒性休克的治疗中没有明显优势,但它可能是挽救某些患者的一种手段。评估RSCL相对价值的最佳方法是前瞻性试验。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Surgical infections》 |2018年第2期|225-229|共5页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.;

    Department of Health and Human Performance, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina.;

    Department of Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.;

    Department of Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.;

    Department of Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.;

  • 收录信息 美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

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