股总动脉内膜切除术与单纯股总动脉内膜切除术患者手术部位感染风险的观察性研究

IF 1.4 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Hamish Walker, Manik S. Chana, Kavisha Mandalia, Sachin R. Kulkarni, Sharath C.V. Paravastu
{"title":"股总动脉内膜切除术与单纯股总动脉内膜切除术患者手术部位感染风险的观察性研究","authors":"Hamish Walker,&nbsp;Manik S. Chana,&nbsp;Kavisha Mandalia,&nbsp;Sachin R. Kulkarni,&nbsp;Sharath C.V. Paravastu","doi":"10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired <em>t</em> test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) (<em>p</em> = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA <em>vs.</em> four days for HR (<em>p</em> = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) (<em>p</em> = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group (<em>p</em> =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) (<em>p</em> = 0.77).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36502,"journal":{"name":"EJVES Vascular Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000832/pdfft?md5=64d7d2128a3de74847f51bebb85edcc8&pid=1-s2.0-S2666688X24000832-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observational Study on the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Common Femoral Endarterectomy in Conjunction With an Endovascular Procedure Compared With Common Femoral Endarterectomy Alone\",\"authors\":\"Hamish Walker,&nbsp;Manik S. Chana,&nbsp;Kavisha Mandalia,&nbsp;Sachin R. Kulkarni,&nbsp;Sharath C.V. Paravastu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired <em>t</em> test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) (<em>p</em> = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA <em>vs.</em> four days for HR (<em>p</em> = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) (<em>p</em> = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group (<em>p</em> =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) (<em>p</em> = 0.77).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJVES Vascular Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000832/pdfft?md5=64d7d2128a3de74847f51bebb85edcc8&pid=1-s2.0-S2666688X24000832-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJVES Vascular Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000832\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJVES Vascular Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24000832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 在外周动脉疾病的治疗中,越来越多地采用混合方法。本研究旨在评估混合血管重建术(HR)与单纯股总动脉内膜剥脱术(CFEA)相比的手术部位感染(SSI)发生率。方法这是对2017年至2021年间接受CFEA或与CFEA同时接受HR的连续患者进行的回顾性研究,包括一年的随访。主要结果是SSI发生率。次要结局包括手术时间、入院时间、进一步血管重建手术、肢体挽救和死亡。结果共纳入了 155 名患者的 157 个腹股沟切口:其中 78 人进行了 CFEA 手术,79 人进行了 HR 手术。两组患者在年龄、性别和手术指征方面均无统计学差异。5 名 CFEA 患者(6%)发生了手术部位感染,而 7 名 HR 患者(9%)发生了手术部位感染(P = 0.77)。HR手术耗时明显更长,平均为299分钟,而CFEA为220分钟(P = 0.001)。入院时间的差异无统计学意义:CFEA的中位住院时间为5天,而HR为4天(p = 0.44)。CFEA手术中有5例(6%)和HR手术中有5例(6%)在一年内进行了大截肢手术(p = 1.0)。HR组中有两名患者尝试了进一步的血管重建手术,CFEA组中有六名患者尝试了进一步的血管重建手术(P = 17)。结论尽管手术时间增加,但同时接受HR和CFEA手术的患者的SSI发生率并没有明显增加。使用HR技术可使患者的多层次疾病在一个阶段内得到治疗,而不会增加SSI的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Observational Study on the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Common Femoral Endarterectomy in Conjunction With an Endovascular Procedure Compared With Common Femoral Endarterectomy Alone

Objective

A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired t test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test.

Results

A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) (p = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA vs. four days for HR (p = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) (p = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group (p =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) (p = 0.77).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.

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
EJVES Vascular Forum
EJVES Vascular Forum Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
102 days
×
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