Intraoperative Wound Lavage System for Deep Neck Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

IF 1 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology Pub Date : 2023-10-06 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1758717
Soraya Abdul-Hadi, Francis Beauchamp Perez, Jeamarie Pascual-Marrero
{"title":"Intraoperative Wound Lavage System for Deep Neck Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Soraya Abdul-Hadi, Francis Beauchamp Perez, Jeamarie Pascual-Marrero","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1758717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Multiple solutions are currently used to cleanse a deep neck infection (DNI), and a variety of devices are available to deliver wound irrigation solutions. An essential difference between these devices is the pressure that the irrigation solution exerts over the wound tissue. Objective To compare low-pressure and high-pressure irrigation delivery systems for wound cleansing in DNI. Methods we designed a retrospective cohort study and reviewed the medical records of patients operated on due to DNI from June 2016 to December 2017 at our institution. One cohort included patients treated with an intraoperative irrigation method that exerts low pressure over the irrigated tissue, and the other cohort, to a system capable of generating higher pressure. The Pearson Chi-squared test was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 42 patients whose ages ranged from 16 months to 72 years were included. The low-pressure irrigation system was used in 18 patients, and the high-pressure system was used in 24 patients. No statistical differences were observed regarding the irrigation methods, the complexity of the DNI, and the overall outcomes. Conclusions The present is the first study in which low- and high-pressure systems for wound lavage were evaluated in the treatment of DNI. When comparing these methods, we did not find one to be superior to the other; however, the additional cost associated with the high-pressure devices may not justify their in head and neck procedures.","PeriodicalId":13731,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758717","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Multiple solutions are currently used to cleanse a deep neck infection (DNI), and a variety of devices are available to deliver wound irrigation solutions. An essential difference between these devices is the pressure that the irrigation solution exerts over the wound tissue. Objective To compare low-pressure and high-pressure irrigation delivery systems for wound cleansing in DNI. Methods we designed a retrospective cohort study and reviewed the medical records of patients operated on due to DNI from June 2016 to December 2017 at our institution. One cohort included patients treated with an intraoperative irrigation method that exerts low pressure over the irrigated tissue, and the other cohort, to a system capable of generating higher pressure. The Pearson Chi-squared test was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 42 patients whose ages ranged from 16 months to 72 years were included. The low-pressure irrigation system was used in 18 patients, and the high-pressure system was used in 24 patients. No statistical differences were observed regarding the irrigation methods, the complexity of the DNI, and the overall outcomes. Conclusions The present is the first study in which low- and high-pressure systems for wound lavage were evaluated in the treatment of DNI. When comparing these methods, we did not find one to be superior to the other; however, the additional cost associated with the high-pressure devices may not justify their in head and neck procedures.
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
术中伤口灌洗系统治疗深颈部感染:回顾性队列研究
摘要:目前用于清洁深颈部感染(DNI)的解决方案多种多样,并且有多种设备可用于提供伤口冲洗溶液。这些装置之间的一个本质区别是冲洗液对伤口组织施加的压力。目的比较低压和高压灌洗系统在DNI创面清洗中的应用。方法设计回顾性队列研究,回顾我院2016年6月至2017年12月因DNI手术的患者病历。一组患者采用术中冲洗法对冲洗组织施加低压,另一组患者采用能够产生更高压力的系统。采用Pearson卡方检验对数据进行分析。结果共纳入42例患者,年龄16个月~ 72岁。低压灌洗系统18例,高压灌洗系统24例。在灌溉方法、DNI复杂性和总体结果方面没有观察到统计学差异。结论本研究首次对低压和高压伤口灌洗系统在DNI治疗中的应用进行了评价。在比较这些方法时,我们没有发现一种方法优于另一种方法;然而,与高压装置相关的额外费用可能不足以证明其在头颈部手术中的合理性。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Audiological Characterization of Individuals with Cornelia de Lange Syndrome. Do Anatomical Variations of Sphenoid Sinus Influence Sella Exposure and Residual Disease in Pituitary Surgery? - A Study in an Indian Population. Dysphagia: Focus in Diagnosis. Efficacy of Expansion Pharyngoplasty without Drug-induced Sleep Endoscopy Screening in Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Results of a New Treatment Protocol for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using Betamethasone for Intratympanic Therapy.
×
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