Suppr超能文献

经皮缝合与经皮缝合钉在心脏植入式电子设备囊袋关闭中的比较结果。

Outcomes of intracutaneous sutures in comparison with intracutaneous staples in cardiac implantable-electronic device pocket closure.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Rawalpindi Institute of Cardiology; Rawalpindi-Pakistan.

Department of Medicine, Shifa College of Medicine; Islamabad-Pakistan.

出版信息

Anatol J Cardiol. 2021 Oct;25(10):716-720. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2021.96644.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

With the increase in cardiovascular implantable-electronic devices (CIEDs), complications from insertion and healing are also increasing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the intracutaneous stapling method to the absorbable suture technique in terms of complications, procedure time, and pocket closure time.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted over the course of three months on patients with CIED implantation. The patients were divided in two groups according to pocket closure technique. Group 1 included patients with pocket closure using intracutaneous sutures; whereas in Group 2, the pocket was closed by intracutaneous staples. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and wound problems. The endpoints were wound problems, including early and late wound problems (primary), total procedure time, and the time taken for pocket closure (secondary).

RESULTS

One hundred and nineteen patients and 107 patients were allocated to Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. During the three-month observation period, 27 (22.6%) patients in Group 1 and 13 (12.1%) patients in Group 2 suffered from early wound problems, and the combined primary endpoint reached was statistically significant (p=0.021). Minor and major bleeding events were more common in Group 1 [Odds ratio (OR): 4.49, p=0.024; OR: 0.96, p=0.052]. The time to close the pocket was markedly reduced in Group 2 (7.29±1.42 vs. 3.98±1.19, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of early wound problems is higher using intracutaneous sutures; and therefore, intracutaneous staples should be preferred to prevent these problems.

摘要

目的

随着心血管植入式电子设备(CIED)的增加,插入和愈合相关并发症也在增加。因此,本研究旨在比较皮内缝合与可吸收缝线技术在并发症、手术时间和囊袋关闭时间方面的差异。

方法

对接受 CIED 植入的患者进行了为期三个月的观察性研究。根据囊袋关闭技术将患者分为两组。第 1 组采用皮内缝线关闭囊袋;第 2 组采用皮内缝合钉关闭囊袋。收集患者特征和伤口问题的数据。主要终点是伤口问题,包括早期和晚期伤口问题(一级终点)、总手术时间和囊袋关闭时间(二级终点)。

结果

119 例和 107 例患者分别被分配至第 1 组和第 2 组。在三个月的观察期内,第 1 组 27 例(22.6%)和第 2 组 13 例(12.1%)患者发生早期伤口问题,联合一级终点具有统计学意义(p=0.021)。第 1 组中轻微和严重出血事件更为常见[比值比(OR):4.49,p=0.024;OR:0.96,p=0.052]。第 2 组关闭囊袋的时间明显缩短(7.29±1.42 比 3.98±1.19,p<0.001)。

结论

皮内缝线更容易导致早期伤口问题,因此应优先选择皮内缝合钉来预防这些问题。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Pacemaker pocket infection rate and suture technique.起搏器囊袋感染率与缝合技术。
Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2020 Jan;48(1):44-48. doi: 10.5543/tkda.2019.82598.
2
Leadless pacemakers: a contemporary review.无导线起搏器:当代综述。
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018 Apr;15(4):249-253. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.04.002.
4
Pacemaker insertion.心脏起搏器植入术。
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Mar;3(3):42. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.02.06.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验