RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Pared Abdominal , Hernia Ventral , Hernia Incisional , Pared Abdominal/cirugía , Hernia Ventral/etiología , Hernia Ventral/cirugía , Herniorrafia/efectos adversos , Herniorrafia/métodos , Humanos , Hernia Incisional/complicaciones , Hernia Incisional/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Mallas Quirúrgicas/efectos adversos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The prevalence of bipolar disorder in patients being treated for depression with antidepressants in a family medicine clinic was investigated in this study. METHODS: Adult patients with depression who were treated with an antidepressant in a general outpatient family medicine clinic at the University of Texas were screened for bipolar disorder using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), a brief self-report inventory. A subsample of subjects received the Structured Clinical Interview based on the DSM-IV (SCID) to test the operating characteristics of the MDQ in this population. RESULTS: of the patients taking an antidepressant for depression, 21.3% screened positive for bipolar disorder on the MDQ. These patients were somewhat younger, more likely to be white, more likely to be living alone, much less likely to be married, and less likely to be employed than those who screen negative. Nearly two thirds of those screened positive had never received diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The sensitivity and specificity of the MDQ in this population, after adjusting for the sampling protocol, were 0.580 (0.454 to 0.706, 95% CI) and 0.930 (0.878 to 0.981, 95% CI) respectively. CONCLUSION: Bipolar disorder frequently occurs in patients being treated with antidepressants in primary care settings. Most are unrecognized and undiagnosed. Screening for bipolar disorder in such patients may improve recognition, identification, and appropriate treatment.