4.0 Article

Superior vena cava graft infection in thoracic surgery: a retrospective study of the French EPITHOR database

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivab337

关键词

Graft infection; Superior vena cava reconstruction; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Empyema; Mediastinal tumours; Mediastinitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports on the management of superior vena cava graft infection. The majority of infections were caused by polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, and the treatment consisted of either conservative or surgical strategies. Graft removal was not always necessary for all cases.
OBJECTIVES To report our experience on the management of superior vena cava graft infection. METHODS Between 2001 and 2018, patients with superior vena cava synthetic graft or patch reconstruction after resection of intrathoracic tumours or benign disease were selected retrospectively from the French EPITHOR database and participating thoracic centres. Our study population includes patients with superior vena cava graft infection, defined according to the MAGIC consensus. Superior vena cava synthetic grafts in an empyema or mediastinitis were considered as infected. RESULTS Of 111 eligible patients, superior vena cava graft infection occurred in 12 (11.9%) patients with a polytetrafluoroethylene graft secondary to contiguous contamination. Management consisted of either conservative treatment with chest tube drainage and antibiotics (n = 3) or a surgical graft-sparing strategy (n = 9). Recurrence of infection appears in 6 patients. Graft removal was performed in 2 patients among the 5 reoperated patients. The operative mortality rate was 25%. CONCLUSIONS Superior vena cava graft infection may develop as a surgical site infection secondary to early mediastinitis or empyema. Graft removal is not always mandatory but should be considered in late or recurrent graft infection or in infections caused by aggressive microorganisms (virulent or multidrug resistant bacteria or fungi).

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

4.0
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