World neurosurgery · 2021
Lumbar Drains for Vascular Procedures: An Institutional Protocol Review and Guidelines.
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.
Behzadi Faraz, Kim Miri, Zielke Tara, Bechara Carlos F, Schwartz Jeffrey, Prabhu Vikram C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aortic disease requiring open or endovascular repair may result in spinal cord injury in approximately 2%-10% of patients. Cerebrospinal fluid diversion using lumbar drains (LDs) has been validated as a protective measure to mitigate this complication.
METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed the implementation of a standardized protocol and subsequent educational intervention for LDs for aortic vascular procedures over a 4-year period.
RESULTS: In 2016-2019, 45 patients had LDs placed for open or endovascular procedures; group 1 included 19 patients with LDs placed before protocol implementation, and group 2 included 26 patients with LDs placed as per the institutional protocol. Demographics and procedural details in both groups were similar. However, there was a significant difference in the number of patients who had emergent versus planned placement of the LD (group 1, 89.5%; group 2, 50%; P < 0.01), volume of cerebrospinal fluid drained (group 1, 453 mL; group 2, 197 mL; P < 0.01), and compliance with 10 mL/hour drainage recommendation (group 1, 68.4%; group 2, 100%; P < 0.01). In group 1, 5 (31.6%) patients experienced neurological complications compared with only 1 (3.8%) in group 2. LD-related complications occurred 3 patients (15.8%) in group 1, whereas none occurred in group 2. Survey results suggested increased health care worker protocol familiarity with educational interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an institutional protocol for LDs for open or endovascular procedures is feasible and beneficial. Educational modules improve familiarity among all health care providers, which can improve patient care and complication avoidance.
METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed the implementation of a standardized protocol and subsequent educational intervention for LDs for aortic vascular procedures over a 4-year period.
RESULTS: In 2016-2019, 45 patients had LDs placed for open or endovascular procedures; group 1 included 19 patients with LDs placed before protocol implementation, and group 2 included 26 patients with LDs placed as per the institutional protocol. Demographics and procedural details in both groups were similar. However, there was a significant difference in the number of patients who had emergent versus planned placement of the LD (group 1, 89.5%; group 2, 50%; P < 0.01), volume of cerebrospinal fluid drained (group 1, 453 mL; group 2, 197 mL; P < 0.01), and compliance with 10 mL/hour drainage recommendation (group 1, 68.4%; group 2, 100%; P < 0.01). In group 1, 5 (31.6%) patients experienced neurological complications compared with only 1 (3.8%) in group 2. LD-related complications occurred 3 patients (15.8%) in group 1, whereas none occurred in group 2. Survey results suggested increased health care worker protocol familiarity with educational interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an institutional protocol for LDs for open or endovascular procedures is feasible and beneficial. Educational modules improve familiarity among all health care providers, which can improve patient care and complication avoidance.