4.7 Article

Post-Operative Infections in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: Risk Factors for Different Infection Sites

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11174969

Keywords

head and neck surgery; head and neck cancer; post-operative infection; surgical site infection; pneumonia; bacteremia; urinary tract infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective observational study evaluated post-operative infections in head and neck cancer surgery, focusing on different sites of infection. The results showed that post-operative infections negatively impacted surgical outcomes. Identifying risk factors accurately can help prevent the occurrence of infections.
Background: Post-operative infections in head and neck cancer (HNC) surgery represent a major problem and are associated with an important increase in mortality, morbidity, and burden on the healthcare system. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate post-operative infections in HNC surgery and to analyze risk factors, with a specific focus on different sites of infection. Methods: Clinical data about 488 HNC patients who underwent surgery were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for post-operative infections. Results: Post-operative infections were observed in 22.7% of cases. Respiratory and surgical site infections were the most common. Multiple site infections were observed in 3.9% of cases. Considering all infection sites, advanced stage, tracheotomy, and higher duration of surgery were risk factors at multivariate analysis. Median hospital stay was significantly longer in patients who had post-operative infection (38 vs. 9 days). Conclusions: Post-operative infections may negatively affect surgical outcomes. A correct identification of risk factors may help the physicians to prevent post-operative infections in HNC surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available