首页> 外文期刊>European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery: the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery >The value of suction wound drain after carotid and femoral artery surgery: a randomised trial using duplex assessment of the volume of post-operative haematoma.
【24h】

The value of suction wound drain after carotid and femoral artery surgery: a randomised trial using duplex assessment of the volume of post-operative haematoma.

机译:颈动脉和股动脉手术后负压吸引引流的价值:一项使用双重评估术后血肿量的随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The use of vacuum suction drains after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and groin dissection for arterial reconstruction surgery remains controversial. A large multicentre prospective randomised trial would be needed to show any difference if clinical end points (infection and haematoma) are used. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the value of wound drainage using accurate duplex measurement of haematoma expecting a 25% difference in volume between drained and non-drained wounds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients undergoing CEA and 73 patients who underwent 106 groins dissection were separately and blindly randomised into two groups: group (a) with wound drain and group (b) without wound drain. A duplex scan was carried out post-operatively to document the presence and volume of any wound haematoma. RESULTS: The majority of wounds did not show any evidence of collections. 1. In the CEA patients duplex scan revealed wound haematoma in 8 patients with a median volume of25 ml (5-65) in group (a) in comparison to 7 wound haematomas 31 ml (3-72) in group (b). Median suction drain drainage was 42 ml (10-120) when used. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Three patients 4.3% (two from the drain group) underwent evacuation of haematoma post-operatively.2. In the groin dissection patients most of the documented collections were trivial. Ultrasound scans showed 21 collections (20%), of these 7 (34%) were in group (a) and 14 (66%) were in group (b). There was no significant difference in wound collections between the two groups (p = 0.28). Only 5 collections (75%) exceeded 10 ml, three of them were in the drain group. One patient (1%), who did not have a drain, developed a wound collection, which needed re-exploration. When a drain was used the median drainage was 64.5 ml (range 10-220). CONCLUSION: These results based on accurate measurement of wound collection suggest that there is no benefit in terms of reduction of the volume of haematoma on wound drainage after CEA or arterial reconstruction surgery involving the groin. A selective policy of use of drainage is therefore recommended.
机译:背景:颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和腹股沟淋巴结清扫术在动脉重建手术后使用真空吸引引流仍存在争议。如果使用临床终点(感染和血肿),则需要进行一项大型的多中心前瞻性随机试验,以显示任何差异。因此,我们进行了一项研究,使用准确的血肿双联测量法评估伤口引流的价值,预计引流伤口与未引流伤口之间的体积差异为25%。患者与方法:将连续70例接受CEA的患者和73例行106个腹股沟淋巴结清扫术的患者分别盲法分为两组:(a)有伤口引流的组和(b)无伤口引流的组。术后进行双工扫描以记录任何伤口血肿的存在和体积。结果:大多数伤口未显示任何收集证据。 1.在CEA患者中,双重扫描显示(a)组8例伤口血肿,中位数为25 ml(5-65),而(b)组7例伤口血肿为31 ml(3-72)。使用时,中位抽水排水量为42 ml(10-120)。两组之间无显着差异。术后3例4.3%的患者(其中2例来自引流组)接受了血肿清除。在腹股沟淋巴结清扫术患者中,大多数文献记载的收集物都是微不足道的。超声扫描显示21个集合(20%),其中7个(34%)在(a)组中,14个(66%)在(b)组中。两组之间的伤口收集没有显着差异(p = 0.28)。只有5个收集物(75%)超过10毫升,其中三个收集在排水组中。一位没有引流器的患者(占1%)出现了伤口收集物,需要重新检查。使用排水管时,排水量中位数为64.5 ml(范围10-220)。结论:这些基于准确测量伤口集合的结果表明,在减少CEA或涉及腹股沟的动脉重建手术后伤口引流时血肿量的减少没有益处。因此,建议使用选择性排水的政策。

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