Uçkay Ilker, von Dach Elodie, Perez Cédric, Agostinho Americo, Garnerin Philippe, Lipsky Benjamin A, Hoffmeyer Pierre, Pittet Didier
Orthopaedic Surgery Service, Medico-Economic Control, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Service of Infectious Diseases, Medico-Economic Control, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Infection Control Program, Medico-Economic Control, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Infection Control Program, Medico-Economic Control, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Jul;92(7):1061-1069. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.03.011. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
To assess the optimal surgical approach and costs for patients hospitalized with septic bursitis.
From May 1, 2011, through December 24, 2014, hospitalized patients with septic bursitis at University of Geneva Hospitals were randomized (1:1) to receive 1- vs 2-stage bursectomy. All the patients received postsurgical oral antibiotic drug therapy for 7 days.
Of 164 enrolled patients, 130 had bursitis of the elbow and 34 of the patella. The surgical approach used was 1-stage in 79 patients and 2-stage in 85. Overall, there were 22 treatment failures: 8 of 79 patients (10%) in the 1-stage arm and 14 of 85 (16%) in the 2-stage arm (Pearson χ test; P=.23). Recurrent infection was caused by the same pathogen in 7 patients (4%) and by a different pathogen in 5 (3%). Outcomes were better in the 1- vs 2-stage arm for wound dehiscence for elbow bursitis (1 of 66 vs 9 of 64; Fisher exact test P=.03), median length of hospital stay (4.5 vs 6.0 days), nurses' workload (605 vs 1055 points), and total costs (Sw₣6881 vs Sw₣11,178; all P<.01).
For adults with moderate to severe septic bursitis requiring hospital admission, bursectomy with primary closure, together with antibiotic drug therapy for 7 days, was safe, effective, and resource saving. Using a 2-stage approach may be associated with a higher rate of wound dehiscence for olecranon bursitis than the 1-stage approach.
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01406652.
评估因化脓性滑囊炎住院患者的最佳手术方法及费用。
2011年5月1日至2014年12月24日,日内瓦大学医院因化脓性滑囊炎住院的患者被随机(1:1)分为接受一期或二期滑囊切除术。所有患者术后接受7天口服抗生素药物治疗。
164例入选患者中,130例为肘部滑囊炎,34例为髌骨滑囊炎。采用一期手术的患者有79例,二期手术的有85例。总体而言,有22例治疗失败:一期手术组79例中有8例(10%),二期手术组85例中有14例(16%)(Pearson卡方检验;P = 0.23)。7例患者(4%)复发性感染由相同病原体引起,5例患者(3%)由不同病原体引起。对于肘部滑囊炎,一期手术组与二期手术组相比,伤口裂开情况更好(66例中的1例 vs 64例中的9例;Fisher精确检验P = 0.03),中位住院时间(4.5天 vs 6.0天)、护士工作量(605分 vs 1055分)以及总费用(6881瑞士法郎 vs 11178瑞士法郎;均P < 0.01)。
对于需要住院治疗的中重度化脓性滑囊炎成人患者,一期缝合的滑囊切除术联合7天抗生素药物治疗安全、有效且节省资源。与一期手术方法相比,采用二期手术方法治疗鹰嘴滑囊炎时伤口裂开率可能更高。
Clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01406652。