Journal of pediatric surgery · 2011
Removal of pectus bar fixed with absorbable vs metallic stabilizers.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Torre Michele, Rapuzzi Giovanni, Rossi Valentina, Carlucci Marcello, Costanzo Sara, Jasonni Vincenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The removal of a pectus bar fixed with a metallic stabilizer can be time consuming and tedious, because in some cases, fibrous or new bone tissue covers the metallic devices. Our study aims to evaluate bar removal in 2 groups of patients with metallic and absorbable stabilizers, respectively.
METHODS: A total of 162 patients underwent mini-invasive repair of pectus excavatum. In all the cases, the bar was stabilized with at least 1 stabilizer on the left side. We used both metallic and absorbable stabilizers. Absorbable stabilizers were preferred when they were available in the market. The bar was removed in 30 patients. We compared removal of the bar in 17 absorbable stabilizers with those bars fixed with 18 metallic stabilizers. Length of incision, operative time, postoperative pain, and complications were studied.
RESULTS: No differences between metallic and absorbable stabilizers were found in terms of postoperative pain and complications. However, removal of the bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer required a significantly smaller incision and shorter operative time.
CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the pectus bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer was simpler and faster.
METHODS: A total of 162 patients underwent mini-invasive repair of pectus excavatum. In all the cases, the bar was stabilized with at least 1 stabilizer on the left side. We used both metallic and absorbable stabilizers. Absorbable stabilizers were preferred when they were available in the market. The bar was removed in 30 patients. We compared removal of the bar in 17 absorbable stabilizers with those bars fixed with 18 metallic stabilizers. Length of incision, operative time, postoperative pain, and complications were studied.
RESULTS: No differences between metallic and absorbable stabilizers were found in terms of postoperative pain and complications. However, removal of the bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer required a significantly smaller incision and shorter operative time.
CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the pectus bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer was simpler and faster.