4.4 Article

Staged reduction of gastroschisis using preformed silos: practicalities and problems

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 44, 期 11, 页码 2126-2129

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.06.006

关键词

Gastroschisis; Silo; Complication; Congenital abdominal wall defect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Previous single-center studies have reported favorable outcomes when preformed silos (PFS) are used for the staged reduction of gastroschisis. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and nature of complications associated with PFS in a large population and provide an insight into the practicalities of their routine use. Methods: A retrospective review was carried out of all cases of gastroschisis managed with PFS in 4 UK neonatal surgical units for a 6-year period. Results: One hundred fifty infants were included, and 139 (92.7%) silos were applied at cot side (no sedation, n = 93). Median silo size was 4 cm, and time of application was 2.5 hours. Enlarging the defect by incision of fascia was required in 17 (11%). Defect closure was performed at a median of 4 days (047) with 93 (62%) being at cot side. Methods of closure were adhesive strips/dressings (n = 94), sutures (n = 48), and patch (n = 8). Discoloration of the viscera occurred in 16 (11%), managed successfully by simple methods (change of PFS, aspirating the stomach, or incision of the defect fascia) (n = 8), conversion to operative silo (n = 3), and operative reduction (n = 1). Four required bowel resection. Other complications included missed atresia (n = 5; 3.3%) and nectrotizing enterocolitis (n = 11; 7%). There were 5 deaths in the series (3.3%). Conclusions: Staged reduction of gastroschisis with PFS is simple, convenient, and safe. The low rates of associated complications and mortality appear favorable when compared to infants managed with more traditional techniques. We recommend that PFS should be used for the routine management of gastroschisis. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据