在澳大利亚,前腹部刀刺伤的临床观察算法是安全的。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY ANZ Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1111/ans.19146
Aswin Shanmugalingam, Priyadarshani Samarasinghe, Kerry Hitos, Jeremy Hsu
{"title":"在澳大利亚,前腹部刀刺伤的临床观察算法是安全的。","authors":"Aswin Shanmugalingam, Priyadarshani Samarasinghe, Kerry Hitos, Jeremy Hsu","doi":"10.1111/ans.19146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We previously published the outcomes associated with the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to determine peritoneal breach for AASW patients without an immediate indication for laparotomy. Although this pathway was 100% sensitive there was a 54% non-therapeutic laparotomy rate. Another option that has been extensively reported is the clinical observation algorithm (COA) however, majority of the data originate from high-volume centres. We hypothesized that a COA would also be a safe option in an Australian setting, and reduce the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention in managing AASW.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective cohort study examining patients with AASW admitted to a level 1 trauma centre in Sydney, Australia, between June 2021 and August 2023. Patient, injury, management and outcome data were collected from electronic medical records and the hospital trauma registry. Data were then analysed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the COA, complication rates and median hospital length-of-stay (LOS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 patients presented with AASW. Of these patients, 11 (22.9%) proceeded to immediate laparotomy. Seven patients had a contraindication to COA and underwent diagnostic laparoscopy. Thirty patients were managed with the COA, with three (10%) patients subsequently requiring a laparotomy. Only one patient (3.3%) underwent a non-therapeutic laparotomy. There were no missed injuries. The COA sensitivity was 100%, specificity 92.7%, PPV 50% and NPV 100%. Patients managed with COA had no complications. Overall median hospital LOS was 1 day (1.0-2.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A COA is a safe approach for evaluating patients with AASW in an Australian setting with adequate resources. It reduces the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention and has acceptable outcomes compared with a diagnostic laparoscopy pathway.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1978-1982"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A clinical observation algorithm for anterior abdominal stab wound is safe in an Australian setting.\",\"authors\":\"Aswin Shanmugalingam, Priyadarshani Samarasinghe, Kerry Hitos, Jeremy Hsu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ans.19146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We previously published the outcomes associated with the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to determine peritoneal breach for AASW patients without an immediate indication for laparotomy. Although this pathway was 100% sensitive there was a 54% non-therapeutic laparotomy rate. Another option that has been extensively reported is the clinical observation algorithm (COA) however, majority of the data originate from high-volume centres. We hypothesized that a COA would also be a safe option in an Australian setting, and reduce the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention in managing AASW.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective cohort study examining patients with AASW admitted to a level 1 trauma centre in Sydney, Australia, between June 2021 and August 2023. Patient, injury, management and outcome data were collected from electronic medical records and the hospital trauma registry. Data were then analysed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the COA, complication rates and median hospital length-of-stay (LOS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 patients presented with AASW. Of these patients, 11 (22.9%) proceeded to immediate laparotomy. Seven patients had a contraindication to COA and underwent diagnostic laparoscopy. Thirty patients were managed with the COA, with three (10%) patients subsequently requiring a laparotomy. Only one patient (3.3%) underwent a non-therapeutic laparotomy. There were no missed injuries. The COA sensitivity was 100%, specificity 92.7%, PPV 50% and NPV 100%. Patients managed with COA had no complications. Overall median hospital LOS was 1 day (1.0-2.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A COA is a safe approach for evaluating patients with AASW in an Australian setting with adequate resources. It reduces the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention and has acceptable outcomes compared with a diagnostic laparoscopy pathway.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1978-1982\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19146\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19146","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:我们曾发表过对无开腹手术指征的急性腹水患者使用诊断性腹腔镜确定腹膜破损情况的相关结果。虽然这种方法的敏感度为 100%,但非治疗性开腹率为 54%。另一种已被广泛报道的方法是临床观察算法(COA),但大多数数据来自于高流量中心。我们假设,在澳大利亚,临床观察算法也是一种安全的选择,可以降低非治疗性手术干预的发生率:这是一项前瞻性队列研究,研究对象是 2021 年 6 月至 2023 年 8 月期间入住澳大利亚悉尼一级创伤中心的 AASW 患者。研究人员从电子病历和医院创伤登记处收集了患者、损伤、管理和结果数据。然后对数据进行分析,以确定COA的诊断准确性、并发症发生率和中位住院时间(LOS):结果:共有 48 名患者出现 AASW。结果:共有 48 名患者出现 AASW,其中 11 人(22.9%)立即进行了开腹手术。7名患者有COA禁忌症,接受了诊断性腹腔镜检查。30名患者接受了COA治疗,其中3名患者(10%)随后需要进行开腹手术。只有一名患者(3.3%)接受了非治疗性开腹手术。没有遗漏损伤。COA灵敏度为100%,特异性为92.7%,PPV为50%,NPV为100%。接受COA治疗的患者没有出现并发症。住院时间中位数为1天(1.0-2.3):结论:在资源充足的澳大利亚,COA是评估AASW患者的一种安全方法。与腹腔镜诊断路径相比,它降低了非治疗性手术干预的发生率,并具有可接受的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A clinical observation algorithm for anterior abdominal stab wound is safe in an Australian setting.

Introduction: We previously published the outcomes associated with the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to determine peritoneal breach for AASW patients without an immediate indication for laparotomy. Although this pathway was 100% sensitive there was a 54% non-therapeutic laparotomy rate. Another option that has been extensively reported is the clinical observation algorithm (COA) however, majority of the data originate from high-volume centres. We hypothesized that a COA would also be a safe option in an Australian setting, and reduce the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention in managing AASW.

Methods: This was a prospective cohort study examining patients with AASW admitted to a level 1 trauma centre in Sydney, Australia, between June 2021 and August 2023. Patient, injury, management and outcome data were collected from electronic medical records and the hospital trauma registry. Data were then analysed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the COA, complication rates and median hospital length-of-stay (LOS).

Results: A total of 48 patients presented with AASW. Of these patients, 11 (22.9%) proceeded to immediate laparotomy. Seven patients had a contraindication to COA and underwent diagnostic laparoscopy. Thirty patients were managed with the COA, with three (10%) patients subsequently requiring a laparotomy. Only one patient (3.3%) underwent a non-therapeutic laparotomy. There were no missed injuries. The COA sensitivity was 100%, specificity 92.7%, PPV 50% and NPV 100%. Patients managed with COA had no complications. Overall median hospital LOS was 1 day (1.0-2.3).

Conclusion: A COA is a safe approach for evaluating patients with AASW in an Australian setting with adequate resources. It reduces the rate of non-therapeutic operative intervention and has acceptable outcomes compared with a diagnostic laparoscopy pathway.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Meconium peritonitis with lanugo due to antenatal colon perforation. Breast cancer related lymphoedema: a review of contemporary preventive strategies. Twelve-year review of horse-related trauma registry presentations to a regional Australian Emergency Department. The abdominal black dread: a rare finding in metastatic malignant melanoma. Transforming Surgical Waiting Lists into Preparation Opportunities: Leveraging Multimodal Prehabilitation to Optimise Surgical Outcomes.
×
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