Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
;
: 260-264, 2014.
Article
Dans Anglais
| WPRIM
| ID: wpr-17867
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
The conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence usually involves surgical revision. Recently, vacuum-assisted closure has been successfully used in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome of 207 patients undergoing vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.METHODS:
Two hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence vacuum-assisted closure therapy (January 2007 through August 2012, n = 25) or conventional treatment (January 2001 through August 2012, n = 182).RESULTS:
The failure rate to first-line treatment with vacuum-assisted closure and conventional treatment were 0% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the enterocutaneous fistulas and hospital stay after vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment respectively.CONCLUSION:
Our findings support that vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a safe and reliable option in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence with very low failure rate in surgical revision compared with conventional treatment.
Texte intégral:
Disponible
Indice:
WPRIM (Pacifique occidental)
Sujet Principal:
Réintervention
/
Plaies et blessures
/
Fistule intestinale
/
Traitement des plaies par pression négative
/
Durée du séjour
Limites du sujet:
Humains
langue:
Anglais
Texte intégral:
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
Année:
2014
Type:
Article
Documents relatifs à ce sujet
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS