American journal of surgery · 2017
Prone positioning reduces perineal infections when performing the miles procedure.
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.
Dinaux Anne M, Amri Ramzi, Berger David L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains the cornerstone treatment for rectal cancers less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The perineal portion of an APR can be done with the patient in lithotomy or repositioned to prone jack-knife position, which influences accessibility, visualization and ability to close the wound. This paper analyses the effect of patient positioning on perineal wound dehiscence and infections.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all rectal cancer patients who underwent an APR at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2004 and 2014 (n = 149). Patients were divided into supine (n = 91) or prone (n = 58) positioning as documented in operative reports.
RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of supine positioned patients developed a perineal wound infection, versus 3.4% of the prone patients (P = 0.002). Perineal wound dehiscence rate was also higher in the supine positioned group (14.3% vs. prone 3.4%; P = 0.032). Multivariable analysis showed OR = 9.2 of developing a perineal wound infection for supine positioned patients, compared to prone, corrected for obesity and smoking history.
CONCLUSION: Repositioning patients into prone position for the perineal portion of an APR was associated with significantly lower perineal wound infection and dehiscence rates compared to supine positioned patients.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all rectal cancer patients who underwent an APR at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2004 and 2014 (n = 149). Patients were divided into supine (n = 91) or prone (n = 58) positioning as documented in operative reports.
RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of supine positioned patients developed a perineal wound infection, versus 3.4% of the prone patients (P = 0.002). Perineal wound dehiscence rate was also higher in the supine positioned group (14.3% vs. prone 3.4%; P = 0.032). Multivariable analysis showed OR = 9.2 of developing a perineal wound infection for supine positioned patients, compared to prone, corrected for obesity and smoking history.
CONCLUSION: Repositioning patients into prone position for the perineal portion of an APR was associated with significantly lower perineal wound infection and dehiscence rates compared to supine positioned patients.