Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021
Surgical management of infected abdominal wall mesh: an analysis using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Devin C L, Olson M A, Tastaldi L, Zheng R, Berger A C, Palazzo F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Several management strategies exist for the treatment of infected abdominal mesh. Using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative, we examined management patterns and 30-day outcomes of infected mesh removal with concomitant incisional hernia repair.
METHODS: All patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different.
CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.
METHODS: All patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different.
CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.