Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg ; 48(2): 943-952, 2022 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33078257

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Sedation management of trauma patients after damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been optimized. We evaluated if shorter sedation exposure was associated with increased proportion of delirium-free/coma-free (DF/CF-ICU) days and change in time to definitive fascial closure (DFC). METHODS: We reviewed trauma DCL patients at an ACS-verified level I center over 5 years as shorter (SE) or longer than median (LE) sedation exposure. We compared demographics, injury patterns, hemodynamic parameters, and injury severity between groups. We calculated the propensity for each patient to achieve DFC using age, gender, ISS, red blood cell transfusion, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular injury, and time to first takeback; we then determined the effect of sedation exposure on rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression, adjusted for propensity to achieve DFC. We used linear regression adjusted for age, ISS, head-AIS, bowel discontinuity, and vascular injury to determine the effect of sedation exposure on the proportion of DF/CF-ICU days. RESULTS: 65 patients (33.8% penetrating) had mean age 41.8 ± 16.0, ISS 27.1 ± 14.2, Head-AIS 1.2 ± 1.6 and median sedation exposure of 2.2 [IQR 0.78, 7.3] days (35 SE and 30 LE). Pattern and severity of solid organ injuries and proportion of small and large bowel and vascular injuries were similar between groups. LE had more abdominal sepsis (23.3% vs 0%, p = 0.003) and enterocutaneous fistula (16.7% vs 0%, p = 0.016), and more ventilator (17.3 ± 12.7 vs 6.1 ± 6.8, p < 0.001), ICU (20.8 ± 14.2 vs 7.2 ± 7.6, p < 0.001), and hospital days (29.6 ± 19.6 vs 13.9 ± 9.0, p < 0.001). DFC was achieved more rapidly in the SE group (2.0 ± 1.5 days vs 3.9 ± 3.7 days [unadjusted], p = 0.023) and SE had a higher proportion of unadjusted DF/CF-ICU days (33.0 ± 32.0% vs 18.1 ± 16.4%, p = 0.020). SE was associated with an increased proportion of adjusted DF/CF-ICU days by multivariate linear regression (13.1% [95% CI 1.4-24.8%], p = 0.029) and with faster adjusted rate of DFC by multivariate Cox regression (RR 2.28 [95% CI 1.25-4.15, p = 0.007]). CONCLUSIONS: Shorter sedation exposure is associated with increased proportion of DF/CF-ICU days and more rapid DFC after DCL for trauma.


Asunto(s)
Traumatismos Abdominales , Lesiones del Sistema Vascular , Traumatismos Abdominales/cirugía , Adulto , Humanos , Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Laparotomía/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sueño
4.
Am Surg ; 82(10): 1033-1037, 2016 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27780000

RESUMEN

There have been few studies directly comparing the postoperative complications in patients with a diverting ileostomy to patients who were not diverted after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal carcinoma. This study is a retrospective chart review of all rectal carcinoma patients (99) who underwent a LAR from January 2009 to December 2014 at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Loma Linda Healthcare System. A majority of patients were diverted (58% vs 42%). The diverted patients were more likely to have a low tumor location (P < 0.01), preoperative chemoradiation (P < 0.01), and more intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01). Our study shows a statistically significant higher overall complication rate among patients receiving a diverting ileostomy in the six months after LAR (61% vs 38%, P = 0.02). The difference is due to a higher rate of readmission (27% vs 14%) and acute kidney injury (14% vs 5%) in patients with a diverting ileostomy. It also shows that there is a higher rate of unplanned reoperation (11% vs 6%) due to anastomotic leak (17% vs 5%) in nondiverted patients. Further studies are needed to refine the specific indications to maximize the benefit of diverting ileostomy after LAR for rectal carcinoma.


Asunto(s)
Ileostomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Colectomía/métodos , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Ileostomía/métodos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/fisiopatología , Pronóstico , Neoplasias del Recto/mortalidad , Recto/cirugía , Reoperación/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Análisis de Supervivencia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA