World neurosurgery · 2022
Cost Savings Associated with Vacuum-Assisted Closure in Trauma Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mehkri Yusuf, Sharaf Ramy, Tishad Abtahi, Gendreau Julian, Hernandez Jairo, Panther Eric, Pafford Ryan, Rahmathulla Gazanfar
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the implications of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) versus standard wound dressings on postoperative posterior spinal fusion (PSF) wounds with respect to potential cost savings associated with reduced incidence of surgical site infections.
METHODS: This was a retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent open PSF under the care of a single surgeon at a Level I trauma center. Patients were postoperatively monitored for 90 days. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 testing with the calculation of number needed to treat values.
RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 208 patients who underwent open PSF. The χ2 test revealed a significant increase in incidence of surgical site infections (20% vs. 8%; P = 0.021) in the non-VAC group (n = 112) compared with the VAC group (n = 96). Cost-benefit analysis revealed that use of VAC in patients undergoing open PSF could enable a mean cost savings of $163,492 per 100 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of VAC in patients undergoing open PSF was associated with a 2-fold decrease in incidence of surgical site infections and an infection-related cost savings of $163,492 per 100 patients. Further investigation is needed to ascertain additional benefits of VAC usage in patients undergoing open PSF.
METHODS: This was a retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent open PSF under the care of a single surgeon at a Level I trauma center. Patients were postoperatively monitored for 90 days. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 testing with the calculation of number needed to treat values.
RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 208 patients who underwent open PSF. The χ2 test revealed a significant increase in incidence of surgical site infections (20% vs. 8%; P = 0.021) in the non-VAC group (n = 112) compared with the VAC group (n = 96). Cost-benefit analysis revealed that use of VAC in patients undergoing open PSF could enable a mean cost savings of $163,492 per 100 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of VAC in patients undergoing open PSF was associated with a 2-fold decrease in incidence of surgical site infections and an infection-related cost savings of $163,492 per 100 patients. Further investigation is needed to ascertain additional benefits of VAC usage in patients undergoing open PSF.