{"title":"应用真空辅助封闭治疗复杂胸腔内感染","authors":"Matic Domjan, Tomaž Štupnik, Matevž Srpčič","doi":"10.6016/zdravvestn.3406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Debilitated patients with chronic empyema, who are not fit enough to undergo thoracotomy and decortication due to lung entrapment, may be offered a lower-risk alternative – an open-window thoracostomy. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) may accelerate empyema drainage and wound closure.
 Methods: In this study, we compared two cohorts of patients receiving open-window thoracostomy (OWT) with or without VAC dressing. We included patients with chronic or postresectional empyema with multiple comorbidities or in poor general condition or on immunosuppression.
 Results: Delayed wound closure by thoracoplasty was performed in 8 (28%) patients in the OWT group and 8 (53%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 2.54; 95% CI: 0.704-9.168). Time until DWC was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in the OWT-VAC group (48.5 ± 27.5 days) compared to the OWT group (316.5 ± 102.5 days). Regarding complications, we found no significant differences between the two groups, except for air leak, which was found in 0 (0%) patients in the OWT group and 6 (40%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.10-2.52; p<0.001). The percentage of patients who required re-do surgery did not differ significantly between the groups - 1 (3%) patient in the OWT group vs. 2 (13%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 7.0; 95% CI: 0.66 – 74.29; p=0.07).
 Conclusion: Our experience shows that using VAC therapy in OWT can significantly shorten the overall treatment time. It can be safely used at home and in an outpatient setting.","PeriodicalId":21777,"journal":{"name":"Slovenian Medical Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of complex intrapleural infections\",\"authors\":\"Matic Domjan, Tomaž Štupnik, Matevž Srpčič\",\"doi\":\"10.6016/zdravvestn.3406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Debilitated patients with chronic empyema, who are not fit enough to undergo thoracotomy and decortication due to lung entrapment, may be offered a lower-risk alternative – an open-window thoracostomy. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) may accelerate empyema drainage and wound closure.
 Methods: In this study, we compared two cohorts of patients receiving open-window thoracostomy (OWT) with or without VAC dressing. We included patients with chronic or postresectional empyema with multiple comorbidities or in poor general condition or on immunosuppression.
 Results: Delayed wound closure by thoracoplasty was performed in 8 (28%) patients in the OWT group and 8 (53%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 2.54; 95% CI: 0.704-9.168). Time until DWC was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in the OWT-VAC group (48.5 ± 27.5 days) compared to the OWT group (316.5 ± 102.5 days). Regarding complications, we found no significant differences between the two groups, except for air leak, which was found in 0 (0%) patients in the OWT group and 6 (40%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.10-2.52; p<0.001). The percentage of patients who required re-do surgery did not differ significantly between the groups - 1 (3%) patient in the OWT group vs. 2 (13%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 7.0; 95% CI: 0.66 – 74.29; p=0.07).
 Conclusion: Our experience shows that using VAC therapy in OWT can significantly shorten the overall treatment time. It can be safely used at home and in an outpatient setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Slovenian Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Slovenian Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6016/zdravvestn.3406\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Slovenian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6016/zdravvestn.3406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Use of vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of complex intrapleural infections
Background: Debilitated patients with chronic empyema, who are not fit enough to undergo thoracotomy and decortication due to lung entrapment, may be offered a lower-risk alternative – an open-window thoracostomy. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) may accelerate empyema drainage and wound closure.
Methods: In this study, we compared two cohorts of patients receiving open-window thoracostomy (OWT) with or without VAC dressing. We included patients with chronic or postresectional empyema with multiple comorbidities or in poor general condition or on immunosuppression.
Results: Delayed wound closure by thoracoplasty was performed in 8 (28%) patients in the OWT group and 8 (53%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 2.54; 95% CI: 0.704-9.168). Time until DWC was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in the OWT-VAC group (48.5 ± 27.5 days) compared to the OWT group (316.5 ± 102.5 days). Regarding complications, we found no significant differences between the two groups, except for air leak, which was found in 0 (0%) patients in the OWT group and 6 (40%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.10-2.52; p<0.001). The percentage of patients who required re-do surgery did not differ significantly between the groups - 1 (3%) patient in the OWT group vs. 2 (13%) patients in the OWT-VAC group (OR 7.0; 95% CI: 0.66 – 74.29; p=0.07).
Conclusion: Our experience shows that using VAC therapy in OWT can significantly shorten the overall treatment time. It can be safely used at home and in an outpatient setting.