腹腔镜阑尾切除术后伤口感染的回顾性研究

Ahmed E. Lasheen, O. A. Elaziz, S. A. Elaal, Mohammed Alkilany, Basem Sieda, tamer A alnaimy
{"title":"腹腔镜阑尾切除术后伤口感染的回顾性研究","authors":"Ahmed E. Lasheen, O. A. Elaziz, S. A. Elaal, Mohammed Alkilany, Basem Sieda, tamer A alnaimy","doi":"10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), an ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates. The analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after LA, have been limited. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty laparoscopic appendectomies performed over one year, were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 group; group A was the one in which LA was done with using reusable retrieval bag and group B without using that. Demographic details, operative time, hospital stay and infective postoperative complications were recorded. Results: This patient groups were selected to be similar in both groups A and B in form of appendicitis types. Each group included 27 (45%) acute catarrhal appendicitis, 20 (33.3%) suppurative appendicitis and 13 (21.7%) perforated appendicitis, P = 1.0. The median patients ages were 21 years (range, 16 to 49) in group A and 25 years (range, 18 to 56) in group B, P = 0.053. Group A included 60 patients (35 males and 25 females) and group B 60 patients (32 males and 28 females), P = 0.071. Mean operative time in group A was 55.7 minutes and in group B was 57 minutes, P = 0.0231. Superficial wound infections were recorded in one patient (1.7%) in group A and in 8 patients (13.3%) in group B, P = 0.007. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was a complicated outcome in 2 patients (3.3%) of group B, P = 0.005. Mean hospital stay was 1.6 days in group A and 2.7 days in group B, P = 0.05. Conclusions: Surgical wound infections are less common by using reusable retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Also, using reusable retrieval bag has less cost.","PeriodicalId":158928,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical Wound Infections After Laparoscopic Appendectomy With or Without Using Reusable Retrieval Bag: A Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed E. Lasheen, O. A. Elaziz, S. A. Elaal, Mohammed Alkilany, Basem Sieda, tamer A alnaimy\",\"doi\":\"10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), an ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates. The analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after LA, have been limited. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty laparoscopic appendectomies performed over one year, were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 group; group A was the one in which LA was done with using reusable retrieval bag and group B without using that. Demographic details, operative time, hospital stay and infective postoperative complications were recorded. Results: This patient groups were selected to be similar in both groups A and B in form of appendicitis types. Each group included 27 (45%) acute catarrhal appendicitis, 20 (33.3%) suppurative appendicitis and 13 (21.7%) perforated appendicitis, P = 1.0. The median patients ages were 21 years (range, 16 to 49) in group A and 25 years (range, 18 to 56) in group B, P = 0.053. Group A included 60 patients (35 males and 25 females) and group B 60 patients (32 males and 28 females), P = 0.071. Mean operative time in group A was 55.7 minutes and in group B was 57 minutes, P = 0.0231. Superficial wound infections were recorded in one patient (1.7%) in group A and in 8 patients (13.3%) in group B, P = 0.007. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was a complicated outcome in 2 patients (3.3%) of group B, P = 0.005. Mean hospital stay was 1.6 days in group A and 2.7 days in group B, P = 0.05. Conclusions: Surgical wound infections are less common by using reusable retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Also, using reusable retrieval bag has less cost.\",\"PeriodicalId\":158928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:尽管报道了腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)的优点,但关于术后感染并发症发生率可能增加的争论仍在继续。对LA术后手术部位感染(ssi)相关危险因素的分析非常有限。患者和方法:本回顾性研究包括一年内120例腹腔镜阑尾切除术。患者分为2组;A组使用可重复使用的回收袋进行LA B组不使用。记录患者的人口学资料、手术时间、住院时间和术后感染并发症。结果:选取A组与B组阑尾炎类型形式相似的患者组。各组急性卡他性阑尾炎27例(45%),化脓性阑尾炎20例(33.3%),穿孔性阑尾炎13例(21.7%),P = 1.0。A组患者年龄中位数为21岁(16 ~ 49岁),B组患者年龄中位数为25岁(18 ~ 56岁),P = 0.053。A组60例(男35例,女25例),B组60例(男32例,女28例),P = 0.071。A组平均手术时间为55.7 min, B组平均手术时间为57 min, P = 0.0231。A组创面感染1例(1.7%),B组创面感染8例(13.3%),P = 0.007。B组2例(3.3%)出现腹内脓肿,P = 0.005。A组平均住院时间1.6 d, B组平均住院时间2.7 d, P = 0.05。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术中使用可重复使用的取物袋可减少手术伤口感染。此外,使用可重复使用的回收袋成本更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical Wound Infections After Laparoscopic Appendectomy With or Without Using Reusable Retrieval Bag: A Retrospective Study
Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), an ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates. The analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after LA, have been limited. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty laparoscopic appendectomies performed over one year, were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 group; group A was the one in which LA was done with using reusable retrieval bag and group B without using that. Demographic details, operative time, hospital stay and infective postoperative complications were recorded. Results: This patient groups were selected to be similar in both groups A and B in form of appendicitis types. Each group included 27 (45%) acute catarrhal appendicitis, 20 (33.3%) suppurative appendicitis and 13 (21.7%) perforated appendicitis, P = 1.0. The median patients ages were 21 years (range, 16 to 49) in group A and 25 years (range, 18 to 56) in group B, P = 0.053. Group A included 60 patients (35 males and 25 females) and group B 60 patients (32 males and 28 females), P = 0.071. Mean operative time in group A was 55.7 minutes and in group B was 57 minutes, P = 0.0231. Superficial wound infections were recorded in one patient (1.7%) in group A and in 8 patients (13.3%) in group B, P = 0.007. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was a complicated outcome in 2 patients (3.3%) of group B, P = 0.005. Mean hospital stay was 1.6 days in group A and 2.7 days in group B, P = 0.05. Conclusions: Surgical wound infections are less common by using reusable retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Also, using reusable retrieval bag has less cost.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信