经皮腹腔脓肿引流:需要大口径导管吗?

Markus A. Röthlin, Othmar Schöb, Hanspeter Klotz, Daniel Candinas, Felix Largiadèr
{"title":"经皮腹腔脓肿引流:需要大口径导管吗?","authors":"Markus A. Röthlin,&nbsp;Othmar Schöb,&nbsp;Hanspeter Klotz,&nbsp;Daniel Candinas,&nbsp;Felix Largiadèr","doi":"10.1080/110241598750004229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective:</h3>\n \n <p>To find out whether small-bore catheters (7 F) are as effective as the 14F sump drains generally used for drainage of abdominal abscesses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design:</h3>\n \n <p>Retrospective review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting:</h3>\n \n <p>University hospital, Switzerland.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Subjects:</h3>\n \n <p>64 patients with intra-abdominal abscesses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interventions:</h3>\n \n <p>40 were drained with 7F pigtail catheters and 24 by 14F sump drains.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results:</h3>\n \n <p>Drainage was successful in 34/40 (85%) and 20/24 (83%), respectively. There were 3 recurrences in the small-bore and 1 in the large-bore group (<i>p</i> = 0.4). Mean drainage time was 8 (SD 5) days and 11 (SD 11) days, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.29). One patient (3%) developed a complication in the small-bore group and 2 (8%) in the large-bore group. 4/6 failures in the small-bore group and 1/4 failures in the large-bore group were pancreatic abscesses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions:</h3>\n \n <p>We conclude that percutaneous drainage with small-bore catheters is as effective as drainage with bigger tubes. Copyright © 1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100508,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Surgery","volume":"164 6","pages":"419-424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/110241598750004229","citationCount":"41","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscesses: are large-bore catheters necessary?\",\"authors\":\"Markus A. Röthlin,&nbsp;Othmar Schöb,&nbsp;Hanspeter Klotz,&nbsp;Daniel Candinas,&nbsp;Felix Largiadèr\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/110241598750004229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective:</h3>\\n \\n <p>To find out whether small-bore catheters (7 F) are as effective as the 14F sump drains generally used for drainage of abdominal abscesses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design:</h3>\\n \\n <p>Retrospective review.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting:</h3>\\n \\n <p>University hospital, Switzerland.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Subjects:</h3>\\n \\n <p>64 patients with intra-abdominal abscesses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Interventions:</h3>\\n \\n <p>40 were drained with 7F pigtail catheters and 24 by 14F sump drains.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results:</h3>\\n \\n <p>Drainage was successful in 34/40 (85%) and 20/24 (83%), respectively. There were 3 recurrences in the small-bore and 1 in the large-bore group (<i>p</i> = 0.4). Mean drainage time was 8 (SD 5) days and 11 (SD 11) days, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.29). One patient (3%) developed a complication in the small-bore group and 2 (8%) in the large-bore group. 4/6 failures in the small-bore group and 1/4 failures in the large-bore group were pancreatic abscesses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions:</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conclude that percutaneous drainage with small-bore catheters is as effective as drainage with bigger tubes. Copyright © 1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"164 6\",\"pages\":\"419-424\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/110241598750004229\",\"citationCount\":\"41\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/110241598750004229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/110241598750004229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

摘要

目的:探讨小口径导管(7f)在腹腔脓肿引流中的效果是否与常用的14F引流槽相同。设计:回顾性审查。地点:瑞士大学医院。研究对象:腹内脓肿64例。干预措施:40例采用7F细尾导管引流,24例采用14F污水池引流。结果:引流成功率为34/40(85%),20/24(83%)。小口径组3例复发,大口径组1例复发(p = 0.4)。平均引流时间分别为8 (SD 5)天和11 (SD 11)天(p = 0.29)。小口径组1例(3%)出现并发症,大口径组2例(8%)出现并发症。小口径组和大口径组分别有4/6和1/4为胰腺脓肿。结论:小口径导管经皮引流与大口径导管经皮引流同样有效。版权所有©1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd。
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
Percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscesses: are large-bore catheters necessary?

Objective:

To find out whether small-bore catheters (7 F) are as effective as the 14F sump drains generally used for drainage of abdominal abscesses.

Design:

Retrospective review.

Setting:

University hospital, Switzerland.

Subjects:

64 patients with intra-abdominal abscesses.

Interventions:

40 were drained with 7F pigtail catheters and 24 by 14F sump drains.

Results:

Drainage was successful in 34/40 (85%) and 20/24 (83%), respectively. There were 3 recurrences in the small-bore and 1 in the large-bore group (p = 0.4). Mean drainage time was 8 (SD 5) days and 11 (SD 11) days, respectively (p = 0.29). One patient (3%) developed a complication in the small-bore group and 2 (8%) in the large-bore group. 4/6 failures in the small-bore group and 1/4 failures in the large-bore group were pancreatic abscesses.

Conclusions:

We conclude that percutaneous drainage with small-bore catheters is as effective as drainage with bigger tubes. Copyright © 1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Masthead Masthead Masthead Importance of the early increase in intestinal permeability in critically Ill patients Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic and open 360° fundoplication in mild and severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease
×
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