Extensive fever workup produces low yield in determining infectious etiology.

OBJECTIVE: The study was undertaken to evaluate the use of a fever workup in women undergoing benign gynecologic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed at Jackson Memorial Hospital between 1994 and 2000. Information was abstracted from hospital and clinic records. Fever criteria was defined as 1 temperature equal to or greater than 101.5, or 2 equal to or greater than 100.4, at least 4 hours apart within a 24-hour period. Patients undergoing additional intraoperative procedures leading to increased febrile morbidity were excluded. Data abstracted included patient demographics, procedure, complications, antibiotic use, and extent of fever workup. Statistical analysis used was 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank test, chi2 test, and multivariate logistic regression. Alpha level = .05. RESULTS: The charts of 505 patients were reviewed, and 147 patients met fever criteria. All patients underwent surgery for benign conditions, abdominal hysterectomy being the most common (90%). The study population was divided into 2 groups: the noninfectious group and infectious group. These groups were determined by wound infection, pelvic abscess, blood or urine culture, ultrasound, and chest roentgen. Both groups were found to be similar with respect to demographics, surgical procedures, and postoperative complications, with the exception of body mass index (28.4 vs 31.7) and length of hospital stay (3.9 vs 5.3). Results from fever workups included positive results blood cultures (9.7%), urine culture (18.8%), and chest roentgens (14%) in this study population. We found no association between positive urine analysis and urine culture. When comparing both groups, a statistically significant difference was found with regard to maximum temperature elevation, number of days febrile, and postoperative day of maximum temperature (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The extensive fever workup was not frequently positive in this study population. Its use and cost-effectiveness should be questioned. Therefore, the fever workup should be tailored to the individual patient.

Continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir (Miami pouch): the University of Miami experience over 15 years.

OBJECTIVE: A patient with a recurrent central pelvic malignancy after radiation will require urinary diversion as part of the reconstructive phase of the pelvic exenteration. The aim of our study was to assess the result of our 15-year experience with a continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir, which is known as the Miami pouch. STUDY DESIGN: Since 1988, all patients who received a continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, were included in the study. Parameters that were evaluated during the study period include functional outcomes, early and late perioperative complications, and their treatment. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were identified from February 1988 to December 2002. Seventy-eight patients (87%) had a recurrent central pelvic malignancy, and 82 patients (91%) received radiation before the Miami pouch procedure. The non-reservoir-related morbidities were fever (76%), wound complication (30%), pelvic collection (12%), ileus/small bowel obstruction (12%), and postoperative death (11%). The most common reservoir-related complications were urinary infection (40%), ureteral stricture (20%), and difficulty with self-catheterization (18%). In our study, the overall complication rate that was related directly to the Miami pouch was 53%. Conservative treatment resolved>80% of these cases. The rate of urinary continence that was achieved in our patients was 93% during our 15-year experience with the Miami pouch. CONCLUSION: The Miami pouch is a good alternative for continent urinary diversion during exenteration or radiation-induced damage. The rate of major complications that require aggressive surgical intervention is acceptable. Most postoperative complications (80%) can be corrected with the use of conservative techniques that are associated with fewer deaths than reoperation and thus should be used first. The technique is simple and effective in women who are at high risk, who have undergone previous radiation therapy, and who have a high rate of functional success and is a profound advantage for a woman's psychosocial well-being.

The safety of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the complication rates of incidental appendectomies in women who undergo benign gynecologic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-controlled study of patients who did (n=100 women) or did not (n=100 women) undergo incidental appendectomies at the time of an abdominal hysterectomy between June 1995 and January 2001. Information was abstracted from hospital and clinic records and a gynecologic oncology database. Data were obtained about age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, the number of days with nothing by mouth, the length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications (cellulitis, fever, ileus, pneumonia, thromboembolic disease). Data were analyzed with the use of two-sample t tests, Wilcoxon Rank sum tests, chi(2) tests, and multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative diagnosis or operative procedure for either group. The number of patients in the group that did have incidental appendectomy versus the group that did not have incidental appendectomy with additional procedures at the time of abdominal hysterectomy was bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (66 vs 61 women), unilateral oophorectomy (19 vs 19 women), lysis of adhesions (9 vs 8 women), and others (12 vs 8 women). Compared with the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, the group that did have incidental appendectomy was younger (mean age+/-SD: 44+/-9.6 years vs 48+/-13.6 years, P=.02) and had a lower mean body mass index (26.1+/-6.0 kg/m(2) vs 29.8+/-8.9 kg/m(2), P=.0009). No significant differences were found between the two groups (the group that did have incidental appendectomy vs the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, respectively) with respect to the following postoperative complications: fever (40 vs 27 women), cellulitis (1 vs 2 women), wound collection (4 vs 6 women), wound dehiscence (1 vs 5 women), wound abscess (7 vs 6 women), ileus (3 vs 2 women), and urinary tract infection (4 vs 10 women). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the group that did have incidental appendectomy than in the group that did not have incidental appendectomy (3.6+/-1.52 days vs 3.1+/-1.1 days, P=.006). However, the difference was no longer significant when patients who were fed electively on the postoperative day 2 were excluded from the analysis (3.16+/-1.13 days vs 3.04+/-1.13 days, P=.507). Thirty-one percent of the histologic specimens were abnormal, with fibrous obliteration being most common, and there was one case of acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: An incidental appendectomy at the time of benign gynecologic procedures does not increase postoperative complication rates or length of hospital stay. The inclusion of incidental appendectomies in all abdominal hysterectomies could potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality rates because of appendicitis in elderly women.