Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 50
Filter
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD010168, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813437

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: Use of drain versus no drain We included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage. The outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies. There were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Open drain versus closed drain There were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis. Early versus late drain removal There were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.


Subject(s)
Abscess/prevention & control , Appendectomy/adverse effects , Appendicitis/surgery , Drainage/methods , Peritonitis/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Humans
3.
Home Healthc Now ; 39(6): 302-309, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608482

ABSTRACT

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) resulting from metastatic spread to the pleura frequently occurs in patients with primary lung, breast, hematological, gastrointestinal, and gynecological cancers. These effusions tend to reaccumulate quickly, and the patient requires increasingly frequent thoracentesis. An indwelling pleural catheter allows for dramatic improvement in quality of life as the patient has the power to ease her/his own suffering by draining the effusion at home when shortness of breath and/or chest pain intensifies. Patients with MPE need home healthcare support to address symptom management related to complications of advanced metastatic cancer and antineoplasm treatment regimens. The financial obstacles for the home healthcare agency are explored by using agency supply costs, per visit costs, and the patient-driven groupings reimbursement mode grouper to estimate reimbursement. Care for a home healthcare patient with MPE costs Medicare approximately $64.50 per day, markedly less than costs for hospitalization and outpatient thoracentesis. Unfortunately, agencies must absorb the cost of vacuum drainage bottles. Whereas a small positive balance of $291 was estimated for the first 30-day posthospital episode, losses were estimated at $1,185 to $1,633 for subsequent 30-day episodes. Absorbing these costs has become extremely difficult as home healthcare agencies are experiencing unprecedented COVID-19 infection control and staffing-related costs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pleural Effusion, Malignant , Aged , Catheters, Indwelling/adverse effects , Drainage , Female , Humans , Medicare , Pleural Effusion, Malignant/therapy , Pleurodesis , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
4.
Int J Surg ; 97: 106200, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587514

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is a global pandemic that affected routine health services and made patients fear to consult for medical health problems, even acute abdominal pain. Subsequently, the incidence of complicated appendicitis increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate recurrent appendicitis after successful drainage of appendicular abscess during COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study conducted in the surgical emergency units of our Universities' Hospitals between March 15, 2020 to August 15, 2020 including patients who were admitted with the diagnosis of an appendicular abscess and who underwent open or radiological drainage. Main outcomes included incidence, severity, and risk factors of recurrent appendicitis in patients without interval appendectomy. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were included for analysis. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (SD ± 13). About two-thirds of patients were males (60.1%). More than one-third (39.6%) had co-morbidities; type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (22.5%) and hypertension (17.1%) were the most frequent. Approximately one quarter (25.6%) had confirmed COVID 19 infection. About one-third of the patients (30.4%) had recurrent appendicitis. More than half of them (56.3%) showed recurrence after three months, and 43.8% of patients showed recurrence in the first three months. The most frequent grade was grade I (63.5%). Most patients (77.1%) underwent open surgery. Age, T2DM, hypertension, COVID-19 infection and abscess size >3 cm were significantly risking predictors for recurrent appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Interval appendectomy is suggested to prevent 56.3% of recurrent appendicitis that occurs after 3 months. We recommend performing interval appendectomy in older age, people with diabetes, COVID-19 infected, and abscesses more than 3 cm in diameter. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is interval appendectomy preventing a high incidence of recurrent appendicitis after successful drainage of appendicular abscess during COVID-19 pandemic?


Subject(s)
Abdominal Abscess , Appendicitis , COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Abdominal Abscess/epidemiology , Abdominal Abscess/etiology , Abdominal Abscess/surgery , Abscess/diagnostic imaging , Abscess/epidemiology , Abscess/etiology , Adult , Aged , Appendectomy/adverse effects , Appendicitis/diagnostic imaging , Appendicitis/surgery , Child, Preschool , Drainage , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Exp Clin Transplant ; 19(10): 1099-1102, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1534489

ABSTRACT

Kidney transplant is the best therapeutic option for patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, kidney transplant is not exempt from postoperative complications. One of the most frequent urological complications is lymphocele, which can appearin up to 20% of patients. Lymphocele most often appears during the first month after surgery. However, its appearance after the first yearis completely infrequent. Here, we report a case of a giant idiopathic lymphocele 18 years after kidney transplant and its resolution with lymphatic embolization.The patient, a 34-year-old man who received a deceased-donor kidney transplant in 2002, had presented with no complications until the lymphocele was diagnosed. The lymphocele presented as a voluminous organ-compressing mass. A percutaneous drainage was placed, and 3600 cm3 of lymphatic fluidwere drained.Afterthat, 800 cm3 continued to leak every day. An intranodal lymphography and lymphatic embolization with Lipiodol Ultra-Fluide (Guerbet Australia) were performed, owing to the high amount of leakage. At 50 days after embolization, an ultrasonograph showed no fluid collections, so the percutaneous catheter was removed. In most patients, the treatment ofthe lymphocele after kidney transplant is frequently conservative. However,for patients whose situation cannot be resolved spontaneously, there are few therapeutic choices. As described here, intranodal lymphatic embolization is a mini-invasive option, with a success rate of up to 80%, and should be offered as the first approach.


Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Lymphocele , Adult , Drainage/adverse effects , Ethiodized Oil , Humans , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Lymphocele/diagnostic imaging , Lymphocele/etiology , Lymphocele/therapy , Male , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
7.
Gut ; 70(11): 2216-2217, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463009

Subject(s)
Ascites , Paracentesis , Drainage , Humans
8.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(10): 848-854, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454702

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.


Subject(s)
Dissection/adverse effects , Facial Nerve/surgery , Hemostasis, Surgical/instrumentation , Parotid Gland/surgery , Blood Loss, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , Drainage/trends , Electrocoagulation/adverse effects , Facial Paralysis/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Postoperative Period , Surgical Instruments/adverse effects
9.
Acad Emerg Med ; 27(11): 1150-1157, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on loop drainage (LD) compared to incision and drainage (I&D) for treatment of cutaneous abscesses. We investigated whether LD was noninferior to I&D for abscess resolution and whether there was any difference in repeat ED visits or complication rates between these techniques. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial, using a convenience sample at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Subjects over 18 years who presented for first-time management of an abscess were eligible. Patients requiring specialist drainage or hospital admission or had previous treatment for the abscess were excluded. Enrolled subjects were seen 2 weeks after treatment for blinded reevaluation of abscess resolution, and the electronic medical record was reviewed for return ED visits/abscess complications. RESULTS: Of 2,889 patients screened, 238 subjects consented and were randomized to LD or I&D. Abscess resolution was achieved in 53/65 (81.5%) of patients in the I&D arm, compared to 66/75 (88%) in the LD arm. Fewer patients in the LD group compared to the I&D group returned to the ED for abscess-related management during the following 14 days (37.3% vs 67.1%, p = 0.002). Among returning subjects, there was a significant difference in mean visits per subject between LD and I&D groups (0.5 vs. 1.2, p = 0.001). There were fewer complications among LD than I&D subjects (9.3% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that LD is noninferior to I&D in achieving complete abscess resolution at 14 days and is associated with fewer return ED visits and fewer complications. This makes it an attractive alternative treatment option for abscesses.


Subject(s)
Abscess , Skin Diseases , Abscess/surgery , Drainage , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Prospective Studies , Skin Diseases/surgery
10.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg ; 31(1): 42-47, 2020 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455304

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The use of digital chest drainage units (CDUs) has become increasingly common in thoracic surgery due to several advantages. However, in cardiac surgery, its use is still limited in favour of conventional analogue CDUs. In order to investigate the potential benefit of digital CDUs in cardiac surgery, we compared the safety and efficacy of both systems in patients undergoing cardiac surgery at our centre. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 265 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between June 2017 and October 2017. These patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with analogue (A, n = 65) and digital CDUs (D, n = 200). Postoperative outcome was analysed and compared between both groups. In addition, the 'user experience' was evaluated by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 70 years (P = 0.167), 25.3% of patients were female (P = 0.414). There were no differences in terms of re-explorative surgery or use of blood products. Nor was there a difference in the overall amount of fluid collected. However, during the first 6 h, more fluid was collected by the digital CDUs. The overall rate of technical failure was 0.4%. We observed a significantly higher rate of clotting in the tubing system of the digital CDUs (P = 0.042). Concerning the user experience, the digital CDUs were associated with a more favourable ease of use on the regular wards (P < 0.001). With regard to the overall user experience, the digital CDUs outperformed the analogue systems (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Digital CDUs can be safely and effectively applied in patients after cardiac surgery. Due to the improved patient mobility and simplified chest tube management, the use of digital CDUs may be advantageous for patients after cardiac surgery. However, the issue of clotting of the tubing systems should be addressed by further technical improvements.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures/methods , Chest Tubes , Drainage/methods , Postoperative Care/methods , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
11.
Hong Kong Med J ; 27(4): 306-308, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352972
12.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg ; 49(12): 1182-1186, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1333559

ABSTRACT

To present five patients with DNM, who were treated during the first quarantine for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Five patients with DNM were treated in our department during the first lockdown. The mean age of the patients was 42,2 years and four were male. Two patients were immunocompromised. Repeated surgical drainage was performed in all patients, whereas four were also subjected to elective tracheostomy during their first operation. The mean hospitalization duration was 55,4 days and mortality was 40%. During the first lockdown for the Covid-19, a rise in the ratio of DNM cases to the overall incidence of cervicofacial infections was observed in our department. All patients with DNM were operated on an emergency basis and were subsequently admitted to the ICU. We consider the effect of the quarantine as a decisive factor for this escalation, because according to the department archives, there had not been any cases of DNM originating from a dental infection, for the past 5 years. Additionally, past studies from the same department reported no more than 6 cases over a 10 year period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mediastinitis , Communicable Disease Control , Drainage , Humans , Male , Necrosis , Pandemics , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Rev. Col. Bras. Cir ; 47: e20202765, 2020.
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1225826
16.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(7): 584-588, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207119

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on healthcare has led to rapid changes in otolaryngology service provisions. As such, new standard operating procedures for the management of suspected tonsillitis or quinsy were implemented in our centre. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed of acute referrals to ENT of patients with suspected tonsillitis, peritonsillar cellulitis or quinsy, during the 10 weeks before (group 1) and 10 weeks after (group 2) implementation of the new standard operating procedures. RESULTS: Group 2 received fewer referrals. Fewer nasendoscopies were performed and corticosteroid use was reduced. The frequency of quinsy drainage performed under local anaesthetic increased, although the difference was not statistically significant. Hospital admission rates decreased from 56.1 to 20.4 per cent, and mean length of stay increased from 1.13 to 1.5 days. Face-to-face follow up decreased from 15.0 to 8.2 per cent, whilst virtual follow up increased from 4.7 to 16.3 per cent. There were no significant differences in re-presentation or re-admission rates. CONCLUSION: Management of suspected tonsillitis or quinsy using the new standard operating procedures appears to be safe and effective. This management should now be applied to an out-patient setting in otherwise systemically well patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Peritonsillar Abscess/therapy , Quality Improvement , Tonsillitis/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biopsy, Fine-Needle , Drainage , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , London , Male , Middle Aged , Otolaryngology/methods , Otolaryngology/standards , Otolaryngology/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
17.
Laryngoscope ; 131(11): 2471-2477, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1179005

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of at home drain removal in head and neck surgery patients. METHODS: The study population included patients who underwent head and neck surgery at an academic tertiary care center between February 2020 and November 2020 and were discharged with one to four drains with instructions for home removal. Prior to discharge, patients received thorough drain removal education. Patients were prospectively followed to evaluate for associated outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated in the study. There was record for ninety-seven patients receiving education at discharge. The most common methods of education were face-to-face education and written instructions with educational video link provided. Of 123 drains upon discharge, 110 drains (89.4%) were removed at home while 13 (10.6%) were removed in office. Most drains were located in the neck (86.4%). There was one seroma, two hematomas, two drain site infections, and five ED visits; however, none of these complications were directly associated with the action of drain removal at home. Calculated cost savings for travel and lost wages was $259.82 per round trip saved. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that home drain removal can provide a safe and efficacious option for patients following head and neck surgery. This approach was safe and associated with patient cost savings and better utilization of provider's time. Furthermore, patients and healthcare providers avoided additional in-person encounters and exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings warrant further investigation into cost savings and formal patient satisfaction associated with home drain removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:2471-2477, 2021.


Subject(s)
Device Removal/adverse effects , Drainage/instrumentation , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Neck Dissection/methods , Patient Discharge/standards , Postoperative Care/instrumentation , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Device Removal/economics , Drainage/methods , Efficiency , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hematoma/epidemiology , Hematoma/etiology , Home Care Services/trends , Humans , Infections/epidemiology , Infections/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Neck Dissection/statistics & numerical data , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Patient Education as Topic/trends , Postoperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety , Seroma/epidemiology , Seroma/etiology , Time Factors
18.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg ; 47(3): 683-692, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1141395

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To analyse acute cholecystitis (AC) management during the first pandemic outbreak after the recommendations given by the surgical societies estimating: morbidity, length of hospital stay, mortality and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. METHODS: Multicentre-combined (retrospective-prospective) cohort study with AC patients in the Community of Madrid between 1st March and 30th May 2020. 257 AC patients were involved in 16 public hospital. Multivariant binomial logistic regression (MBLR) was applied to mortality. RESULTS: Of COVID-19 patients, 30 were diagnosed at admission and 12 patients were diagnosed during de admission or 30 days after discharge. In non-COVID-19 patients, antibiotic therapy was received in 61.3% of grade I AC and 40.6% of grade II AC. 52.4% of grade III AC were treated with percutaneous drainage (PD). Median hospital stay was 5 [3-8] days, which was higher in the non-surgical treatment group with 7.51 days (p < 0.001) and a 3.25% of mortality rate (p < 0.21). 93.3% of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.03), median hospital stay was 11.0 [7.5-27.5] days (p < 0.001) with a 7.5% of mortality rate (p > 0.05). In patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91.7% of grade I-II AC were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.037), with a median hospital stay of 16 [4-21] days and a 18.2% mortality rate (p > 0.05). Hospital-acquired infection risk when hospital stay is > 7 days is OR 4.7, CI 95% (1.3-16.6), p = 0.009. COVID-19 mortality rate was 11.9%, AC severity adjusted OR 5.64 (CI 95% 1.417-22.64). In MBLR analysis, age (OR 1.15, CI 95% 1.02-1.31), SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 14.49, CI 95% 1.33-157.81), conservative treatment failure (OR 8.2, CI 95% 1.34-50.49) and AC severity were associated with an increased odd of mortality. CONCLUSION: In our population, during COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase of non-surgical treatment which was accompanied by an increase of conservative treatment failure, morbidity and hospital stay length which may have led to an increased risk hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Age, SARS-CoV-2 infection, AC severity and conservative treatment failure were mortality risk factors.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Cholecystectomy/statistics & numerical data , Cholecystitis, Acute , Conservative Treatment , Cross Infection , Infection Control , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cholecystitis, Acute/diagnosis , Cholecystitis, Acute/epidemiology , Cholecystitis, Acute/therapy , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Conservative Treatment/methods , Conservative Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/virology , Drainage/methods , Drainage/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
19.
Endoscopy ; 52(10): 927, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-985567
20.
J Craniofac Surg ; 32(2): 691-693, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127417

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Retropharyngeal abscesses are rarely reported in adults and occur mostly in patients with immunocompromised or as a foreign body complication. Admittedly, the treatment of retropharyngeal abscesses frequently involves surgical drainage to achieve the best results. However, when retropharyngeal abscesses occurred in a highly suspected patient with COVID-19, the managements and treatments should be caution to prevent the spread of the virus. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: On February 13, a 40-year-old male with retropharyngeal abscesses turned to our department complaining dyspnea and dysphagia. In addition, his chest CT scan shows a suspected COVID-19 infection, thus making out Multiple Disciplinary Team determine to perform percutaneous drainage and catheterization through left anterior cervical approach under the guidance of B-ultrasound. Finally, the patient recovered and was discharged from the hospital on February 27 after 14 days of isolation. There was no recurrence after half a year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: By presenting this case, we aim at raising awareness of different surgical drainage methods and summarizing our experience in the management of retropharyngeal abscesses during the outbreak of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Retropharyngeal Abscess , Adult , Disease Outbreaks , Drainage , Humans , Male , Retropharyngeal Abscess/diagnostic imaging , Retropharyngeal Abscess/surgery , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL