Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Xu,Zhongyang
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Zheng,Yanping
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302018000600518
Resumo: SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections and to make an appropriate choice according to the patient's condition. METHODS. Thirty patients with thoracic infections who received surgical treatment from August 2014 to December2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 males and 14 females, aged from 41 to 90 years, with an average of 64.4 years. A total of 9 cases were treated with percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation (minimal group), and 21 cases were treated with open debridement in combination with pedicle screw fixation (conventional group). Patients underwent follow-up for 1 month. General condition, operative index, laboratory results, and imaging features were recorded. RESULTS. Compared with the conventional group, there were more comorbidities in patients in the minimal group (8 cases in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.049), shorter hospital stay (10.1 + 2.26 days in the minimal group, 16.1 + 6.81 days in the conventional group, P=0.016), less bleeding volume (383.3 + 229.86ml in the minimal group, 90 + 11.18ml in the conventional group, P=0.000), lower VAS score at discharge (2.9 + 0.93 in the minimal group, 3.9 + 0.91 in the conventional group, P=0.013). There was no spinal instability case in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.013. There were significant differences. The C reaction protein prior to operation in the minimal group was 28.4±7.50mg/L. Compared with 45.1 + 15.78mg/L in the conventional group, P=0.005, it was lower. CONCLUSIONS. Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation are an effective surgery for treatment of thoracic infections, especially suitable for patients with comorbidities and poor general condition. However, for severe infection and spinal instability, we tend to choose open surgery in combination with fixation.
id AMB-1_9751d714d98013a124f9c8ccb9f523ce
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302018000600518
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infectionsDebridementEndoscopy/methodsInfectionSUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections and to make an appropriate choice according to the patient's condition. METHODS. Thirty patients with thoracic infections who received surgical treatment from August 2014 to December2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 males and 14 females, aged from 41 to 90 years, with an average of 64.4 years. A total of 9 cases were treated with percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation (minimal group), and 21 cases were treated with open debridement in combination with pedicle screw fixation (conventional group). Patients underwent follow-up for 1 month. General condition, operative index, laboratory results, and imaging features were recorded. RESULTS. Compared with the conventional group, there were more comorbidities in patients in the minimal group (8 cases in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.049), shorter hospital stay (10.1 + 2.26 days in the minimal group, 16.1 + 6.81 days in the conventional group, P=0.016), less bleeding volume (383.3 + 229.86ml in the minimal group, 90 + 11.18ml in the conventional group, P=0.000), lower VAS score at discharge (2.9 + 0.93 in the minimal group, 3.9 + 0.91 in the conventional group, P=0.013). There was no spinal instability case in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.013. There were significant differences. The C reaction protein prior to operation in the minimal group was 28.4±7.50mg/L. Compared with 45.1 + 15.78mg/L in the conventional group, P=0.005, it was lower. CONCLUSIONS. Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation are an effective surgery for treatment of thoracic infections, especially suitable for patients with comorbidities and poor general condition. However, for severe infection and spinal instability, we tend to choose open surgery in combination with fixation.Associação Médica Brasileira2018-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302018000600518Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.64 n.6 2018reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.64.06.518info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessXu,ZhongyangZheng,Yanpingeng2018-09-19T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302018000600518Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2018-09-19T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
title Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
spellingShingle Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
Xu,Zhongyang
Debridement
Endoscopy/methods
Infection
title_short Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
title_full Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
title_fullStr Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
title_sort Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections
author Xu,Zhongyang
author_facet Xu,Zhongyang
Zheng,Yanping
author_role author
author2 Zheng,Yanping
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Xu,Zhongyang
Zheng,Yanping
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Debridement
Endoscopy/methods
Infection
topic Debridement
Endoscopy/methods
Infection
description SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation for thoracic infections and to make an appropriate choice according to the patient's condition. METHODS. Thirty patients with thoracic infections who received surgical treatment from August 2014 to December2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 males and 14 females, aged from 41 to 90 years, with an average of 64.4 years. A total of 9 cases were treated with percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation (minimal group), and 21 cases were treated with open debridement in combination with pedicle screw fixation (conventional group). Patients underwent follow-up for 1 month. General condition, operative index, laboratory results, and imaging features were recorded. RESULTS. Compared with the conventional group, there were more comorbidities in patients in the minimal group (8 cases in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.049), shorter hospital stay (10.1 + 2.26 days in the minimal group, 16.1 + 6.81 days in the conventional group, P=0.016), less bleeding volume (383.3 + 229.86ml in the minimal group, 90 + 11.18ml in the conventional group, P=0.000), lower VAS score at discharge (2.9 + 0.93 in the minimal group, 3.9 + 0.91 in the conventional group, P=0.013). There was no spinal instability case in the minimal group, 10 cases in the conventional group, P=0.013. There were significant differences. The C reaction protein prior to operation in the minimal group was 28.4±7.50mg/L. Compared with 45.1 + 15.78mg/L in the conventional group, P=0.005, it was lower. CONCLUSIONS. Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and irrigation are an effective surgery for treatment of thoracic infections, especially suitable for patients with comorbidities and poor general condition. However, for severe infection and spinal instability, we tend to choose open surgery in combination with fixation.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302018000600518
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302018000600518
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.64.06.518
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.64 n.6 2018
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212833399144448