Surgical Wound Infections After Laparoscopic Appendectomy With or Without Using Reusable Retrieval Bag: A Retrospective Study

Ahmed E. Lasheen, O. A. Elaziz, S. A. Elaal, Mohammed Alkilany, Basem Sieda, tamer A alnaimy
{"title":"Surgical Wound Infections After Laparoscopic Appendectomy With or Without Using Reusable Retrieval Bag: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Ahmed E. Lasheen, O. A. Elaziz, S. A. Elaal, Mohammed Alkilany, Basem Sieda, tamer A alnaimy","doi":"10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), an ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates. The analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after LA, have been limited. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty laparoscopic appendectomies performed over one year, were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 group; group A was the one in which LA was done with using reusable retrieval bag and group B without using that. Demographic details, operative time, hospital stay and infective postoperative complications were recorded. Results: This patient groups were selected to be similar in both groups A and B in form of appendicitis types. Each group included 27 (45%) acute catarrhal appendicitis, 20 (33.3%) suppurative appendicitis and 13 (21.7%) perforated appendicitis, P = 1.0. The median patients ages were 21 years (range, 16 to 49) in group A and 25 years (range, 18 to 56) in group B, P = 0.053. Group A included 60 patients (35 males and 25 females) and group B 60 patients (32 males and 28 females), P = 0.071. Mean operative time in group A was 55.7 minutes and in group B was 57 minutes, P = 0.0231. Superficial wound infections were recorded in one patient (1.7%) in group A and in 8 patients (13.3%) in group B, P = 0.007. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was a complicated outcome in 2 patients (3.3%) of group B, P = 0.005. Mean hospital stay was 1.6 days in group A and 2.7 days in group B, P = 0.05. Conclusions: Surgical wound infections are less common by using reusable retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Also, using reusable retrieval bag has less cost.","PeriodicalId":158928,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17795/MINSURGERY-36894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), an ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates. The analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after LA, have been limited. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty laparoscopic appendectomies performed over one year, were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 group; group A was the one in which LA was done with using reusable retrieval bag and group B without using that. Demographic details, operative time, hospital stay and infective postoperative complications were recorded. Results: This patient groups were selected to be similar in both groups A and B in form of appendicitis types. Each group included 27 (45%) acute catarrhal appendicitis, 20 (33.3%) suppurative appendicitis and 13 (21.7%) perforated appendicitis, P = 1.0. The median patients ages were 21 years (range, 16 to 49) in group A and 25 years (range, 18 to 56) in group B, P = 0.053. Group A included 60 patients (35 males and 25 females) and group B 60 patients (32 males and 28 females), P = 0.071. Mean operative time in group A was 55.7 minutes and in group B was 57 minutes, P = 0.0231. Superficial wound infections were recorded in one patient (1.7%) in group A and in 8 patients (13.3%) in group B, P = 0.007. Intra-abdominal abscess formation was a complicated outcome in 2 patients (3.3%) of group B, P = 0.005. Mean hospital stay was 1.6 days in group A and 2.7 days in group B, P = 0.05. Conclusions: Surgical wound infections are less common by using reusable retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Also, using reusable retrieval bag has less cost.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜阑尾切除术后伤口感染的回顾性研究
背景:尽管报道了腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)的优点,但关于术后感染并发症发生率可能增加的争论仍在继续。对LA术后手术部位感染(ssi)相关危险因素的分析非常有限。患者和方法:本回顾性研究包括一年内120例腹腔镜阑尾切除术。患者分为2组;A组使用可重复使用的回收袋进行LA B组不使用。记录患者的人口学资料、手术时间、住院时间和术后感染并发症。结果:选取A组与B组阑尾炎类型形式相似的患者组。各组急性卡他性阑尾炎27例(45%),化脓性阑尾炎20例(33.3%),穿孔性阑尾炎13例(21.7%),P = 1.0。A组患者年龄中位数为21岁(16 ~ 49岁),B组患者年龄中位数为25岁(18 ~ 56岁),P = 0.053。A组60例(男35例,女25例),B组60例(男32例,女28例),P = 0.071。A组平均手术时间为55.7 min, B组平均手术时间为57 min, P = 0.0231。A组创面感染1例(1.7%),B组创面感染8例(13.3%),P = 0.007。B组2例(3.3%)出现腹内脓肿,P = 0.005。A组平均住院时间1.6 d, B组平均住院时间2.7 d, P = 0.05。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术中使用可重复使用的取物袋可减少手术伤口感染。此外,使用可重复使用的回收袋成本更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Key Methods to Increase the Success Rate of Endoscopic Repair of Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Marginal Ulcer After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Case Report and Review of Literature Meshoma, a Rare Complication of Abdomen and Hernia Repair-A Case Report Successful Removal of a Pulmonary Foreign Body Using C-Arm-Guided Flexible Bronchoscopy from Distal Airways of a Seven-Year-Old Boy: A Case Report Rectal Indomethacin Versus Rectal Diclofenac Sodium for Reducing Pain Associated with Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1