WIfI Classification Based Analysis of Risk Factors for Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia after Endovascular Revascularisation Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of limb status with the Wound, Ischaemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification and the assessment of patient risks combined with systemic factors, are recommended in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI). However, there is little evidence of the application of the WIfI classification in the Chinese population. This study aimed to verify the use of the WIfI classification in a Chinese patient population, and to further identify local and systemic independent predictors of adverse CLTI outcomes. METHODS: A total of 474 patients who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) for CLTI in a tertiary hospital between July 2017 and September 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The outcomes included one year major adverse limb events (MALEs), one year all cause mortality, and one year amputation free survival (AFS). Cox regression was used to analyse the association between risk factors and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 104 (21.9%) all cause deaths were recorded. The rate of MALEs was 17.5%, while the AFS was 71.9%. Multivariable analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = .002), a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% (p < .001), and WIfI wound grade (p < .001) were independent risk factors for MALEs, while age ≥ 77 years (p = .031), BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (p < .001), coronary heart disease (p = .040), and WIfI clinical stages (p = .021) were independent risk factors for death in patients with CLTI. Age ≥ 77 years (p = .003), BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (p < .001), coronary heart disease (p = .012), LVEF < 50% (p < .001), WIfI wound grade (p = .004), and WIfI clinical stages (p = .044) were independently associated with a decreased AFS rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study has confirmed the predictive ability of the WIfI classification for Chinese patients with CLTI who underwent EVT. Wound grade was the most sensitive and important risk factor of the three components of WIfI. In addition, systemic factors should be considered to ensure a more accurate prognosis prediction and appropriate clinical decision making in patients with CLTI.

Hernia mesh infection treatment following the repair of abdominal wall hernias: A single-center experience.

Introduction: The mesh-based repair of abdominal wall hernias is a commonly employed approach as it is easy to implement and associated with low rates of hernia recurrence. However, the occurrence of hernia mesh infections following such repair can be extremely serious, and no clinical consensus regarding the optimal treatment of such infections has been established. This study was thus developed to review the management of hernia mesh infection cases treated at our center, summarizing the demographic and clinical characteristics of affected patients and summarizing our associated therapeutic experiences. Methods: Data pertaining to 64 cases of hernia mesh infections treated at our center were retrospectively reviewed. Data were obtained from patient medical records, including general situation, hernia type, prior hernia repair approaches, type of mesh, and postoperative condition. Other reviewed outcomes include bacteriological and imaging findings, as well as treatment outcomes. In cases where conservative management was not successful, the approach to mesh removal (laparoscopic vs. open) was made based on the primary surgical approach and the type of material used for the repair. Results: In total, 42 patients underwent primary open inguinal hernioplasty (including plug repair, preperitoneal mesh repair, and Lichtenstein repair), while 11 patients underwent laparoscopic repair (9 transabdominal preperitoneal, TAPP and 2 totally extraperitoneal,TEP), and 11 patients with incisional hernias underwent the intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) procedure. Six patients exhibited mesh erosion of the internal organs. Of these patients, 38 underwent mesh removal via open debridement, while 9 underwent laparoscopic exploration and open debridement, and 1 underwent laparoscopic mesh removal. No patients exhibited serious postoperative sequelae, serious complications, or mortality after the treatment of mesh infections.One patient experienced postoperative infection recurrence following partial mesh removal, with the appearance of a small fistula. Hernias recurred in 2 patients following mesh removal, and 1 patient underwent repair via laparoscopic IPOM. Conclusions: While conservative treatment can cure early mesh infections, there is nonetheless a risk that these infections will recur. In view of the variety of surgical intervention of abdominal wall hernias at present,treatment of mesh infection should be individualized. Our findings suggest that hernias repaired via the placement of mesh in the preperitoneal space can more readily contribute to internal organ erosion and late-onset infections, with open debridement often being unable to completely remove the mesh without causing collateral damage. Laparoscopic exploration is an effective and minimally invasive approach to detecting internal organ involvement and removing the infected hernia mesh from affected patients.