Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society · 2025
Reduced length of stay and less systemic complications, implementation of the optimized DIEP recovery pathway.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Korpiola Ina, Merkkola-von Schantz Päivi, Surcel Elena, Kauhanen Susanna, Härmä Maiju
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study aimed to compare patients who underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction with and without the implementation of the new optimized surgical recovery pathway. The new protocol aims to standardize and optimize perioperative management, shorten hospital stays, and lower complication rates for patients undergoing major surgical procedures.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate or delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction were included in this study. Data regarding patient demographics, timing, laterality of reconstruction, hospital length of stay (LOS), and drain management were collected and compared for the pre-protocol group and the post-protocol group.
RESULTS: The pre-protocol group consisted of 65 patients, while the post-protocol group consisted of 68 patients. The two groups had similar total complication rates (pre-protocol 43.1% versus post-protocol 32.4%, p = 0.20). Between the two groups, there was a significantly lower rate of major surgical complications in the post-protocol group (pre-protocol 32.3% versus post-protocol 14.7%, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding minor surgical complications (pre-protocol 7.7% versus post-protocol 17.6%, p = 0.086). In the pre-protocol group, the mean LOS was 6.1 days (range = 4-10, median = 6); in the post-protocol group, the mean LOS was 3.6 days (range = 3-10, median = 3; p < 0.00001). Majority of the post-protocol patients were discharged on postoperative day 3 (n = 47, 69.1%).
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction can be discharged earlier without risking their safety by following the new protocol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate or delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction were included in this study. Data regarding patient demographics, timing, laterality of reconstruction, hospital length of stay (LOS), and drain management were collected and compared for the pre-protocol group and the post-protocol group.
RESULTS: The pre-protocol group consisted of 65 patients, while the post-protocol group consisted of 68 patients. The two groups had similar total complication rates (pre-protocol 43.1% versus post-protocol 32.4%, p = 0.20). Between the two groups, there was a significantly lower rate of major surgical complications in the post-protocol group (pre-protocol 32.3% versus post-protocol 14.7%, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding minor surgical complications (pre-protocol 7.7% versus post-protocol 17.6%, p = 0.086). In the pre-protocol group, the mean LOS was 6.1 days (range = 4-10, median = 6); in the post-protocol group, the mean LOS was 3.6 days (range = 3-10, median = 3; p < 0.00001). Majority of the post-protocol patients were discharged on postoperative day 3 (n = 47, 69.1%).
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction can be discharged earlier without risking their safety by following the new protocol.