Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020
Usefulness of intraoperative culture swabs in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Peña María E, Sadava Emmanuel E, Laxague Francisco, Schlottmann Francisco
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Intraabdominal abscess (IAA) is a feared complication after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for complicated appendicitis. Benefits of obtaining intraoperative culture swabs (ICS) still remain controversial. We aimed to determine whether ICS modify the rate and management of IAA after LA for complicated appendicitis.
METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent LA for complicated appendicitis from 2008 to 2018 were included. The cohort was divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), with ICS, and group 2 (G2), without ICS. Demographics, operative variables, pathogen isolation, antibiotic sensitivity, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 1639 LA were performed in the study period. Of these, 270 (16.5%) were complicated appendicitis; 90 (33%) belonged to G1 and 180 (67%) to G2. In G1, a higher proportion of patients had generalized peritonitis (G1, 63.3%; G2, 35%; p < 0.01). Seventy-two (80%) patients had positive cultures in G1. The most frequently isolated bacteria were E. coli (66.7%), Bacteroides spp. (34.7%), and Streptococcus spp. (19.4%). In 26 (36%) patients, the initial empiric antibiotic course was modified due to bacterial resistance. The rate of IAA was higher in patients with ICS (G1, 21.1%; G2, 9.4%; p = 0.01). IAA was treated similarly in both groups. A different type of bacteria was isolated in 7 (53.8%) patients with new culture swabs.
CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining ICS in LA for complicated appendicitis with further antibiotic adjustment to the initial pathogen did not lower the incidence of postoperative IAA and did not modify the treatment needed for this complication.
METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent LA for complicated appendicitis from 2008 to 2018 were included. The cohort was divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), with ICS, and group 2 (G2), without ICS. Demographics, operative variables, pathogen isolation, antibiotic sensitivity, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 1639 LA were performed in the study period. Of these, 270 (16.5%) were complicated appendicitis; 90 (33%) belonged to G1 and 180 (67%) to G2. In G1, a higher proportion of patients had generalized peritonitis (G1, 63.3%; G2, 35%; p < 0.01). Seventy-two (80%) patients had positive cultures in G1. The most frequently isolated bacteria were E. coli (66.7%), Bacteroides spp. (34.7%), and Streptococcus spp. (19.4%). In 26 (36%) patients, the initial empiric antibiotic course was modified due to bacterial resistance. The rate of IAA was higher in patients with ICS (G1, 21.1%; G2, 9.4%; p = 0.01). IAA was treated similarly in both groups. A different type of bacteria was isolated in 7 (53.8%) patients with new culture swabs.
CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining ICS in LA for complicated appendicitis with further antibiotic adjustment to the initial pathogen did not lower the incidence of postoperative IAA and did not modify the treatment needed for this complication.