PubMed · 72299
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1977-11-05. Postoperative atelectasis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/72299/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a serious complication of abdominal surgery. We compared incisional hernia frequency following gastric bypass (GBP) for morbid obesity versus total abdominal colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis. A prefascial polypropylene mesh repair was also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients had midline incisions, xiphoid to umbilicus in GBP patients and midepigastrium to pubis in IPAA patients. Fascia were closed with running No. 2 polyglycolic acid suture. Ninety-eight patients underwent prefascial polypropylene mesh repair; 80 were GBP patients, 46 had 1 previous repair, and 17 had 2 to 9 previous repairs (6 with properitoneal mesh). RESULTS: Incisional hernia occurred in 20% (198/968) of GBP patients (19% without versus 41% with a previous hernia, P < 0.001) versus 4% (7/171) of the IPAA patients (P < 0.001), of whom 102 (60%) were taking prednisone (32 +/- 2 mg/d) and 5 were quite obese (body mass index > or = 30 kg/m2). Additional risk factors for hernia in GBP patients included wound infection, diabetes, sleep apnea, and obesity hypoventilation. For the 98 patients who underwent prefascial polypropylene mesh repair, the mean follow-up was 20 +/- 2 months (range 6 to 104), and complications occurred in 35% of patients, including minor wound infection (12%), major wound infection (5%), seroma (5%), hematoma (3%), chronic pain (6%), and recurrent hernia (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Severe obesity is a greater risk factor for incisional hernia and hernia recurrence than chronic steroid use in nonobese colitis patients. A prefascial polypropylene mesh repair minimizes recurrence.
BACKGROUND: Intra-abdominal infection is generally considered a contraindication to primary colon anastomosis. In order to elucidate the mechanisms by which sepsis affects colonic healing, we studied anastomotic new collagen and protein synthesis and collagen gene expression in a relevant animal model. METHODS: Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats (240 to 260 g) underwent sham laparotomy (SHAM, n = 18) or cecal ligation and single puncture (CLP, n = 22). After 24 hours, animals underwent single-layer left colon anastomosis. Animals were sacrificed either 1 or 4 days postanastomosis. Anastomotic segments of colon were excised, minced, and incubated with 4.5 muCi 3H-proline. After 3 hours, tissue 3H-proline incorporation was quantitated as an index of total new protein synthesis. The protein fraction was then digested with purified collagenase enzyme to determine 3H-proline incorporation into collagenase-digestible protein, an index of new collagen synthesis. Total RNA was extracted from anastomotic tissue samples and subjected to Northern blot analysis for type I and type III collagen genes. RESULTS: Intra-abdominal sepsis resulted in markedly less new collagen synthesis 1 day postanastomosis (9,163 +/- 1,234 versus 3,744 +/- 444 disintegrates per minute 3H-proline/mg of protein, P < 0.0001) and 4 days postanastomosis (8,462 +/- 956 versus 5,708 +/- 802 dpm/mg of protein P < 0.05). Noncollagenous protein synthesis was also impaired in anastomotic tissue from CLP rats on postanastomosis day 1 (37,497 +/- 3,740 versus 18,593 +/- 2,695 dpm/mg of of protein, P < 0.001) and postanastomosis day 4 (28,238 +/- 834 versus 17,784 +/- 1,415 dpm/mg of of protein, P < 0.0001). The expression of type I and type III collagen was altered relative to the normal temporal sequence observed in SHAM animals. CONCLUSION: Intra-abdominal infection impairs colonic reparative collagen and protein synthesis. In addition, regulation of type I and type III collagen genes is altered by intra-abdominal sepsis, and the alteration likely contributes to impaired new collagen synthesis and decreased colonic mechanical strength.
PURPOSE: A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon, were randomized to receive or not receive operative closed-suction drainage. Operative blood loss was not an exclusion criteria, and no patient who consented to the study was excluded. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (73%) had resection of one hepatic lobe or more (27 lobectomies, 54 trisegmentectomies, and 6 bilobar atypical resections) and 33 had less than a lobectomy (8 wedge resections or enucleations, 9 segmentectomies, and 16 bisegmentectomies). Eighty-four patients (70%) had metastatic cancer and 36 patients (30%) had primary liver pathology. There were no differences in outcome, including length of hospital stay (no drain, 13.4 +/- 0.9 days; drain, 13.1 +/- 0.8 days; P = not significant [NS]), mortality (no drain, 3.3%; drain, 3.3%), complication rate (no drain, 43%; drain, 48%; P = NS), or requirement for subsequent percutaneous drainage (no drain, 18%; drain, 8%; P = NS). All infected collections (n = 3) occurred in operatively drained patients. Two other complications were directly related to the operatively placed drains. One patient developed a subcutaneous abscess at the drain site, and a second developed a subcutaneous drain tract tumor recurrence as the only current site of recurrence. CONCLUSION: In the first 50 consecutive resections performed since the conclusion of this trial, only 4 patients (8%) have required subsequent percutaneous drainage. We conclude that abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection.