The outcomes of treatment between primary closure and staged closure in gastroschisis in the pre and post era of the bedside wound retractor silo placement technique.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Pediatric Surgery International Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1007/s00383-024-05940-5
Sireekarn Chantakhow, Pattamaporn Thaivutinukul, Kanokkan Tepmalai, Chutjongkol Intatong, Jiraporn Khorana
{"title":"The outcomes of treatment between primary closure and staged closure in gastroschisis in the pre and post era of the bedside wound retractor silo placement technique.","authors":"Sireekarn Chantakhow, Pattamaporn Thaivutinukul, Kanokkan Tepmalai, Chutjongkol Intatong, Jiraporn Khorana","doi":"10.1007/s00383-024-05940-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of the closure methods between pre and post-eras of bedside wound retractor silo placement technique (BSC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included infants diagnosed with gastroschisis from 2006-2013, pre-BSC era, and from 2014-2021, BSC era. Infants who had fetal anomalies did not survive before receiving treatment and were treated with the delayed closure method were excluded. Pretreatment covariates were adjusted using propensity score in the multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 170 patients, 5 were excluded. 111 patients underwent primary closure (PC), 54 patients were staged closure (SC). Successful early enteral feeding was achieved in 70(42%) of patients. Among these patients, 52.2% were in the PC group, and 22.2% in the SC group. PC had a significantly higher rate of successful early enteral feeding compared to SC in the pre-BSC era (OR 21.98, 95%CI 2.59-186.51, p-value 0.005). The BSC era, there was no significant difference between the groups (OR 2.04, 95%CI 0.41-1.20, p-value 0.386). There were no differences in complications between PC and SC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SC was not inferior in terms of achieving early feeding compared with PC. BSC is an acceptable procedure when a PC was not appropriate and accessible.</p>","PeriodicalId":19832,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Surgery International","volume":"41 1","pages":"59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Surgery International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05940-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of the closure methods between pre and post-eras of bedside wound retractor silo placement technique (BSC).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included infants diagnosed with gastroschisis from 2006-2013, pre-BSC era, and from 2014-2021, BSC era. Infants who had fetal anomalies did not survive before receiving treatment and were treated with the delayed closure method were excluded. Pretreatment covariates were adjusted using propensity score in the multivariable logistic regression.

Results: From 170 patients, 5 were excluded. 111 patients underwent primary closure (PC), 54 patients were staged closure (SC). Successful early enteral feeding was achieved in 70(42%) of patients. Among these patients, 52.2% were in the PC group, and 22.2% in the SC group. PC had a significantly higher rate of successful early enteral feeding compared to SC in the pre-BSC era (OR 21.98, 95%CI 2.59-186.51, p-value 0.005). The BSC era, there was no significant difference between the groups (OR 2.04, 95%CI 0.41-1.20, p-value 0.386). There were no differences in complications between PC and SC.

Conclusions: SC was not inferior in terms of achieving early feeding compared with PC. BSC is an acceptable procedure when a PC was not appropriate and accessible.

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
床边伤口牵开筒仓置放技术前后胃裂一期闭合与分期闭合的疗效比较。
目的:比较床边伤口牵开筒仓置放技术(BSC)前后闭合方法的治疗效果。方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了2006-2013年BSC前期和2014-2021年BSC期诊断为胃裂的婴儿。有胎儿畸形的婴儿在接受治疗前未存活并采用延迟闭合方法治疗的婴儿被排除在外。预处理协变量在多变量logistic回归中使用倾向评分进行校正。结果:170例患者中,排除5例。111例患者进行了一期缝合(PC), 54例患者进行了分期缝合(SC)。70例(42%)患者成功实现早期肠内喂养。其中,PC组占52.2%,SC组占22.2%。在bsc前期,PC的早期肠内喂养成功率显著高于SC (OR 21.98, 95%CI 2.59 ~ 186.51, p值0.005)。BSC时代,两组间差异无统计学意义(OR 2.04, 95%CI 0.41-1.20, p值0.386)。结论:在实现早期喂养方面,SC并不比PC差。平衡计分卡是一个可接受的程序,当个人电脑是不合适的和可访问的。
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
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
215
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Surgery International is a journal devoted to the publication of new and important information from the entire spectrum of pediatric surgery. The major purpose of the journal is to promote postgraduate training and further education in the surgery of infants and children. The contents will include articles in clinical and experimental surgery, as well as related fields. One section of each issue is devoted to a special topic, with invited contributions from recognized authorities. Other sections will include: -Review articles- Original articles- Technical innovations- Letters to the editor
期刊最新文献
Outcomes and complications of different approaches for 1-2 cm upper tract stones in the paediatric population: bicentric retrospective analysis. A single-center experience with orthotic bracing for children with pectus carinatum. Trends and outcomes of thoracoscopic esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula repair: a retrospective analysis 2016-2022. Genetic association analysis of lnc-AMFR-1:1 rs4784659 C > T and neuroblastoma susceptibility in Chinese pediatric patients. Anorectal malformation in adulthood: a systematic review of biological, psychological, and sociological outcomes and experiences.
×
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:604180095
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