Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Document Type
- Journal article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Keywords
- Radiochemotherapy (1)
- Rectal cancer (1)
- Surgery (1)
- Time interval (1)
- abdominal surgery (1)
- bladder (1)
- catheterization (1)
- catheters (1)
- epidural block (1)
- negative pressure wound therapy (1)
Background
Epidural catheters are state of the art for postoperative analgesic in abdominal surgery. Due to neurolysis it can lead to postoperative urinary tract retention (POUR), which leads to prolonged bladder catheterization, which has an increased risk for urinary tract infections (UTI). Our aim was to identify the current perioperative management of urinary catheters and, second, to identify the optimal time of suprapubic bladder catheter removal in regard to the removal of the epidural catheter.
Methods
We sent a questionnaire to 102 German hospitals and analyzed the 83 received answers to evaluate the current handling of bladder drainage and epidural catheters. Then, we conducted a retrospective study including 501 patients, who received an epidural and suprapubic catheter after abdominal surgery at the University Hospital Würzburg. We divided the patients into three groups according to the point in time of suprapubic bladder drainage removal in regard to the removal of the epidural catheter and analyzed the onset of a UTI.
Results
Our survey showed that in almost all hospitals (98.8%), patients received an epidural catheter and a bladder drainage after abdominal surgery. The point in time of urinary catheter removal was equally distributed between before, simultaneously and after the removal of the epidural catheter (respectively: ~28–29%). The retrospective study showed a catheter-associated UTI in 6.7%. Women were affected significantly more often than men (10,7% versus 2,5%, p<0.001). There was a non-significant trend to more UTIs when the suprapubic catheter was removed after the epidural catheter (before: 5.7%, after: 8.4%).
Conclusion
The point in time of suprapubic bladder drainage removal in relation to the removal of the epidural catheter does not seem to correlate with the rate of UTIs. The current handling in Germany is inhomogeneous, so further studies to standardize treatment are recommended.
Background
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is the recommended standard of care for patients with local advanced rectal cancer. However, it remains unclear, whether a prolonged time interval to surgery results in an increased perioperative morbidity, reduced TME quality or better pathological response. Aim of this study was to determine the time interval for best pathological response and perioperative outcome compared to current recommended interval of 6 to 8 weeks.
Methods
This is a retrospective analysis of the German StuDoQ|Rectalcarcinoma registry. Patients were grouped for the time intervals of "less than 6 weeks", "6 to 8 weeks", "8 to 10 weeks" and "more than 10 weeks". Primary endpoint was pathological response, secondary endpoint TME quality and complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification.
Results
Due to our inclusion criteria (preoperative chemoradiation, surgery in curative intention, M0), 1.809 of 9.560 patients were suitable for analysis. We observed a trend for increased rates of pathological complete response (pCR: ypT0ypN0) and pathological good response (pGR: ypT0-1ypN0) for groups with a prolonged time interval which was not significant. Ultimately, it led to a steady state of pCR (16.5%) and pGR (22.6%) in "8 to 10" and "more than 10" weeks. We were not able to observe any differences between the subgroups in perioperative morbidity, proportion of rectal extirpation (for cancer of the lower third) or difference in TME quality.
Conclusion
A prolonged time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation can be performed, as the rate of pCR seems to be increased without influencing perioperative morbidity.
Background
International consensus criteria (ICC) have redefined borderline resectability for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) according to three dimensions: anatomical (BR-A), biological (BR-B), and conditional (BR-C). The present definition acknowledges that resectability is not just about the anatomic relationship between the tumour and vessels but that biological and conditional dimensions also are important.
Methods
Patients’ tumours were retrospectively defined borderline resectable according to ICC. The study cohort was grouped into either BR-A or BR-B and compared with patients considered primarily resectable (R). Differences in postoperative complications, pathological reports, overall (OS), and disease-free survival were assessed.
Results
A total of 345 patients underwent resection for PDAC. By applying ICC in routine preoperative assessment, 30 patients were classified as stage BR-A and 62 patients as stage BR-B. In total, 253 patients were considered R. The cohort did not contain BR-C patients. No differences in postoperative complications were detected. Median OS was significantly shorter in BR-A (15 months) and BR-B (12 months) compared with R (20 months) patients (BR-A vs. R: p = 0.09 and BR-B vs. R: p < 0.001). CA19-9, as the determining factor of BR-B patients, turned out to be an independent prognostic risk factor for OS.
Conclusions
Preoperative staging defining surgical resectability in PDAC according to ICC is crucial for patient survival. Patients with PDAC BR-B should be considered for multimodal neoadjuvant therapy even if considered anatomically resectable.
Purpose
Traditionally, previous wound infection was considered a contraindication to secondary skin closure; however, several case reports describe successful secondary wound closure of wounds "preconditioned" with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Although this has been increasingly applied in daily practice, a systematic analysis of its feasibility has not been published thus far. The aim of this study was to evaluate secondary skin closure in previously infected abdominal wounds following treatment with NPWT.
Methods
Single-center retrospective analysis of patients with infected abdominal wounds treated with NPWT followed by either secondary skin closure referenced to a group receiving open wound therapy. Endpoints were wound closure rate, wound complications (such as recurrent infection or hernia), and perioperative data (such as duration of NPWT or hospitalization parameters).
Results
One hundred ninety-eight patients during 2013-2016 received a secondary skin closure after NPWT and were analyzed and referenced to 67 patients in the same period with open wound treatment after NPWT. No significant difference in BMI, chronic immunosuppressive medication, or tobacco use was found between both groups. The mean duration of hospital stay was 30 days with a comparable duration in both patient groups (29 versus 33 days, p = 0.35). Interestingly, only 7.7% of patients after secondary skin closure developed recurrent surgical site infection and in over 80% of patients were discharged with closed wounds requiring only minimal outpatient wound care.
Conclusion
Surgical skin closure following NPWT of infected abdominal wounds is a good and safe alternative to open wound treatment. It prevents lengthy outpatient wound therapy and is expected to result in a higher quality of life for patients and reduce health care costs.