亚历克西斯伤口牵开器用于根治性膀胱切除术:一种安全有效的牵开方法。

IF 1.8 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Advances in Urology Pub Date : 2018-12-09 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2018/8727301
Ajaydeep S Sidhu, Eric Marten, Nikita Bodoukhin, George Wayne, Elizabeth Nagoda, Akshay Bhandari, Alan M Nieder
{"title":"亚历克西斯伤口牵开器用于根治性膀胱切除术:一种安全有效的牵开方法。","authors":"Ajaydeep S Sidhu,&nbsp;Eric Marten,&nbsp;Nikita Bodoukhin,&nbsp;George Wayne,&nbsp;Elizabeth Nagoda,&nbsp;Akshay Bhandari,&nbsp;Alan M Nieder","doi":"10.1155/2018/8727301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surgical site infection rates remain a common postoperative problem that continues to affect patients undergoing urologic surgery. Our study seeks to evaluate the difference in surgical site infection rates in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy when comparing the Bookwalter vs. the Alexis wound retractors. After institutional review board approval, we performed a retrospective chart review from February 2010 through August 2017 of patients undergoing open radical cystectomy with urinary diversion for bladder cancer. We then stratified the groups according to whether or not the surgery was performed with the Alexis or standard Bookwalter retractor. Baseline characteristics and operative outcomes were then compared between the two groups, with the main measure being incidence of surgical site infection as defined by the CDC. We evaluated those presenting with surgical site infections within or greater than 30 postoperatively. Of 237 patients who underwent radical cystectomy with either the Alexis or Bookwalter retractor, 168 patients were eligible to be included in our analysis. There was no statistical difference noted regarding surgical site infections (SSIs) between the two groups; however, the trend was in favor of the Alexis (3%) vs. the Bookwalter (11%) at less than 30 days surgery. The Alexis wound retractor likely poses an advantage in reducing the incidence in surgical site infections in patients undergoing radical cystectomy; however, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are suggested for further elucidation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7490,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/8727301","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alexis Wound Retractor for Radical Cystectomy: A Safe and Effective Method for Retraction.\",\"authors\":\"Ajaydeep S Sidhu,&nbsp;Eric Marten,&nbsp;Nikita Bodoukhin,&nbsp;George Wayne,&nbsp;Elizabeth Nagoda,&nbsp;Akshay Bhandari,&nbsp;Alan M Nieder\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2018/8727301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Surgical site infection rates remain a common postoperative problem that continues to affect patients undergoing urologic surgery. Our study seeks to evaluate the difference in surgical site infection rates in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy when comparing the Bookwalter vs. the Alexis wound retractors. After institutional review board approval, we performed a retrospective chart review from February 2010 through August 2017 of patients undergoing open radical cystectomy with urinary diversion for bladder cancer. We then stratified the groups according to whether or not the surgery was performed with the Alexis or standard Bookwalter retractor. Baseline characteristics and operative outcomes were then compared between the two groups, with the main measure being incidence of surgical site infection as defined by the CDC. We evaluated those presenting with surgical site infections within or greater than 30 postoperatively. Of 237 patients who underwent radical cystectomy with either the Alexis or Bookwalter retractor, 168 patients were eligible to be included in our analysis. There was no statistical difference noted regarding surgical site infections (SSIs) between the two groups; however, the trend was in favor of the Alexis (3%) vs. the Bookwalter (11%) at less than 30 days surgery. The Alexis wound retractor likely poses an advantage in reducing the incidence in surgical site infections in patients undergoing radical cystectomy; however, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are suggested for further elucidation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/8727301\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8727301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8727301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

手术部位感染率仍然是一个常见的术后问题,继续影响接受泌尿外科手术的患者。我们的研究旨在比较Bookwalter和Alexis伤口牵开器在开放性根治性膀胱切除术患者手术部位感染率的差异。在机构审查委员会批准后,我们对2010年2月至2017年8月接受开放性根治性膀胱切除术合并尿分流治疗膀胱癌的患者进行了回顾性图表回顾。然后我们根据手术是用亚历克西斯式牵开器还是标准布克瓦尔特式牵开器进行分组。然后比较两组的基线特征和手术结果,主要衡量标准是CDC定义的手术部位感染发生率。我们评估了术后30年内或以上出现手术部位感染的患者。在237例使用Alexis或Bookwalter牵开器进行根治性膀胱切除术的患者中,有168例患者符合纳入我们的分析。两组手术部位感染(ssi)无统计学差异;然而,在不到30天的手术中,亚历克西斯(3%)和布克沃特(11%)的趋势是有利的。Alexis伤口牵开器可能在减少根治性膀胱切除术患者手术部位感染的发生率方面具有优势;然而,建议进行多中心、更大样本量的研究以进一步阐明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alexis Wound Retractor for Radical Cystectomy: A Safe and Effective Method for Retraction.

Surgical site infection rates remain a common postoperative problem that continues to affect patients undergoing urologic surgery. Our study seeks to evaluate the difference in surgical site infection rates in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy when comparing the Bookwalter vs. the Alexis wound retractors. After institutional review board approval, we performed a retrospective chart review from February 2010 through August 2017 of patients undergoing open radical cystectomy with urinary diversion for bladder cancer. We then stratified the groups according to whether or not the surgery was performed with the Alexis or standard Bookwalter retractor. Baseline characteristics and operative outcomes were then compared between the two groups, with the main measure being incidence of surgical site infection as defined by the CDC. We evaluated those presenting with surgical site infections within or greater than 30 postoperatively. Of 237 patients who underwent radical cystectomy with either the Alexis or Bookwalter retractor, 168 patients were eligible to be included in our analysis. There was no statistical difference noted regarding surgical site infections (SSIs) between the two groups; however, the trend was in favor of the Alexis (3%) vs. the Bookwalter (11%) at less than 30 days surgery. The Alexis wound retractor likely poses an advantage in reducing the incidence in surgical site infections in patients undergoing radical cystectomy; however, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are suggested for further elucidation.

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
Advances in Urology
Advances in Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Urology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes state-of-the-art reviews and original research papers of wide interest in all fields of urology. The journal strives to provide publication of important manuscripts to the widest possible audience worldwide, without the constraints of expensive, hard-to-access, traditional bound journals. Advances in Urology is designed to improve publication access of both well-established urologic scientists and less well-established writers, by allowing interested scientists worldwide to participate fully.
×
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