http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Bao Ngoc N. Tran,Austin D. Chen,Parisa Kamali,Dhruv Singhal,Bernard T. Lee,Eugene Y. Fukudome 대한성형외과학회 2018 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.45 No.5
Background Complication rates after flap coverage for pressure ulcers have been high historically. These patients have multiple risk factors associated with poor wound healing and complications including marginal nutritional status, prolonged immobilization, and a high comorbidities index. This study utilizes the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to examine perioperative outcomes of flap coverage for pressure ulcers. Methods Data from the NSQIP database (2005–2015) for patient undergoing flap coverage for pressure ulcers was identified. Demographic, perioperative information, and complications were reviewed. One-way analysis of variance and Pearson chi-square were used to assess differences for continuous variables and nominal variables, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for complications. Results There were 755 cases identified: 365 (48.3%) sacral ulcers, 321 (42.5%) ischial ulcers, and 69 (9.1%) trochanteric ulcers. Most patients were older male, with some degree of dependency, neurosensory impairment, high functional comorbidities score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or above. The sacral ulcer group had the highest incidence of septic shock and bleeding, while the trochanteric ulcer group had the highest incidence of superficial surgical site infection. There was an overall complication rate of 25% at 30-day followup. There was no statistical difference in overall complication among groups. Total operating time, diabetes, and non-elective case were independent risk factors for overall complications. Conclusions Despite patients with poor baseline functional status, flap coverage for pressure ulcer patients is safe with acceptable postoperative complications. This type of treatment should be considered for properly selected patients.
Tran, Bao Ngoc N.,Chen, Austin D.,Kamali, Parisa,Singhal, Dhruv,Lee, Bernard T.,Fukudome, Eugene Y. Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surge 2018 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.45 No.5
Background Complication rates after flap coverage for pressure ulcers have been high historically. These patients have multiple risk factors associated with poor wound healing and complications including marginal nutritional status, prolonged immobilization, and a high comorbidities index. This study utilizes the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to examine perioperative outcomes of flap coverage for pressure ulcers. Methods Data from the NSQIP database (2005-2015) for patient undergoing flap coverage for pressure ulcers was identified. Demographic, perioperative information, and complications were reviewed. One-way analysis of variance and Pearson chi-square were used to assess differences for continuous variables and nominal variables, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for complications. Results There were 755 cases identified: 365 (48.3%) sacral ulcers, 321 (42.5%) ischial ulcers, and 69 (9.1%) trochanteric ulcers. Most patients were older male, with some degree of dependency, neurosensory impairment, high functional comorbidities score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or above. The sacral ulcer group had the highest incidence of septic shock and bleeding, while the trochanteric ulcer group had the highest incidence of superficial surgical site infection. There was an overall complication rate of 25% at 30-day follow-up. There was no statistical difference in overall complication among groups. Total operating time, diabetes, and non-elective case were independent risk factors for overall complications. Conclusions Despite patients with poor baseline functional status, flap coverage for pressure ulcer patients is safe with acceptable postoperative complications. This type of treatment should be considered for properly selected patients.
Bao Ngoc N. Tran,Austin D. Chen,Melisa D. Granoff,Anna Rose Johnson,Parisa Kamali,Dhruv Singhal,Bernard T. Lee,Eugene Y. Fukudome 대한성형외과학회 2019 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.46 No.4
Background Sternal rigid plate fixation (RPF) has been adopted in recent years in high-risk cases to reduce complications associated with steel wire cerclage, the traditional approach to sternal closure. While sternal RPF has been associated with lower complication rates than wire cerclage, it has its own complication profile that requires evaluation, necessitating a critical examination from a national perspective. This study will report the outcomes and associated risk factors of sternal RPF using a national database. Methods Patients undergoing sternal RPF from 2005 to 2016 in the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were identified. Demographics, perioperative information, and complication rates were reviewed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for postoperative complications. Results There were 381 patient cases of RPF identified. The most common complications included bleeding (28.9%), mechanical ventilation >48 hours (16.5%), and reoperation/readmission (15.2%). Top risk factors for complications included dyspnea (odds ratio [OR], 2.672; P<0.001), nonelective procedure (OR, 2.164; P=0.010), congestive heart failure (OR, 2.152; P=0.048), open wound (OR, 1.977; P=0.024), and operating time (OR, 1.005; P<0.001). Conclusions Sternal RPF is associated with increased rates of three primary complications: blood loss requiring transfusion, ventilation >48 hours, and reoperation/readmission, each of which affected over 15% of the study population. Smokers remain at an increased risk for surgical site infection and sternal dehiscence despite RPF’s purported benefit to minimize these outcomes. Complications of primary versus delayed sternal RPF are roughly equivalent, but individual patients may perform better with one versus the other based on identified risk factors.
Tran, Bao Ngoc N.,Chen, Austin D.,Granoff, Melisa D.,Johnson, Anna Rose,Kamali, Parisa,Singhal, Dhruv,Lee, Bernard T.,Fukudome, Eugene Y. Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surge 2019 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.46 No.4
Background Sternal rigid plate fixation (RPF) has been adopted in recent years in high-risk cases to reduce complications associated with steel wire cerclage, the traditional approach to sternal closure. While sternal RPF has been associated with lower complication rates than wire cerclage, it has its own complication profile that requires evaluation, necessitating a critical examination from a national perspective. This study will report the outcomes and associated risk factors of sternal RPF using a national database. Methods Patients undergoing sternal RPF from 2005 to 2016 in the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were identified. Demographics, perioperative information, and complication rates were reviewed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for postoperative complications. Results There were 381 patient cases of RPF identified. The most common complications included bleeding (28.9%), mechanical ventilation >48 hours (16.5%), and reoperation/readmission (15.2%). Top risk factors for complications included dyspnea (odds ratio [OR], 2.672; P<0.001), nonelective procedure (OR, 2.164; P=0.010), congestive heart failure (OR, 2.152; P=0.048), open wound (OR, 1.977; P=0.024), and operating time (OR, 1.005; P<0.001). Conclusions Sternal RPF is associated with increased rates of three primary complications: blood loss requiring transfusion, ventilation >48 hours, and reoperation/readmission, each of which affected over 15% of the study population. Smokers remain at an increased risk for surgical site infection and sternal dehiscence despite RPF's purported benefit to minimize these outcomes. Complications of primary versus delayed sternal RPF are roughly equivalent, but individual patients may perform better with one versus the other based on identified risk factors.