The Canadian journal of urology · 2013
The utility of abdominal ultrasound during percutaneous suprapubic catheter placement.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Johnson Scott, Fiscus Gabriel, Sudakoff Gary S, O'Connor R Corey, Guralnick Michael L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the use of ultrasound (US) at the time of percutaneous suprapubic catheter (SPC) placement. US has been recommended as a way to minimize complications, such as bowel injury, during percutaneous SPC placement, yet there is limited data supporting this recommendation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing percutaneous SPC placement from 2002 to 2011. The method of percutaneous SPC placement (cystoscopic and/or ultrasound guidance, blind) was recorded and patients were subdivided into groups based on the use of US. The need to modify the approach based on US findings and complications such as bleeding or bowel injury were noted and compared between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 307 percutaneous SPCs were placed: cystoscopy alone was used in 190 (62%) patients, cystoscopy + US in 86 (28%) patients, US alone in 6 (2%) patients, and 25 (8%) patients had the SPC placed blindly. Previous lower abdominal surgery was noted in 41/92 (45%) of patients with and 32/215 (15%) of patients without US usage. US identified intervening loops of bowel in 5/92 cases (5%), all of whom had a history of lower abdominal surgery. The approach was modified in 2/5 and abandoned in 3/5 based on US findings. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 1/215 (0.5%) of patients with and 1/92 (1%) of patients without US usage. No bowel injuries occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: While US may not be needed in most patients, particularly when cystoscopy is used, it may help to avoid bowel injury in patients with a history of lower abdominal surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing percutaneous SPC placement from 2002 to 2011. The method of percutaneous SPC placement (cystoscopic and/or ultrasound guidance, blind) was recorded and patients were subdivided into groups based on the use of US. The need to modify the approach based on US findings and complications such as bleeding or bowel injury were noted and compared between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 307 percutaneous SPCs were placed: cystoscopy alone was used in 190 (62%) patients, cystoscopy + US in 86 (28%) patients, US alone in 6 (2%) patients, and 25 (8%) patients had the SPC placed blindly. Previous lower abdominal surgery was noted in 41/92 (45%) of patients with and 32/215 (15%) of patients without US usage. US identified intervening loops of bowel in 5/92 cases (5%), all of whom had a history of lower abdominal surgery. The approach was modified in 2/5 and abandoned in 3/5 based on US findings. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 1/215 (0.5%) of patients with and 1/92 (1%) of patients without US usage. No bowel injuries occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: While US may not be needed in most patients, particularly when cystoscopy is used, it may help to avoid bowel injury in patients with a history of lower abdominal surgery.