4.2 Article

Wound infection in colorectal cancer resections through a laparoscopic approach: a single-center prospective observational study of over 3000 cases

期刊

DISCOVER ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12672-021-00396-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that laparoscopic rectal surgery has a higher risk of wound infection compared to colonic surgery, with risk factors including abdominoperineal resection, BMI≥25 kg/m(2), and chemoradiotherapy in rectal surgery. No significant risk factors were identified in laparoscopic colonic surgery.
ObjectivesThis prospective observational study aimed to clarify the incidence and independent risk factors of wound infection after laparoscopic surgery for primary colonic and rectal cancer.MethodsA prospective surveillance of surgical site infection (SSI) was conducted in consecutive patients with primary colorectal cancer, who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery in a single comprehensive cancer center between 2005 and 2014. The outcomes of interest were the incidence and risk factors of wound infection.ResultsIn total, 3170 patients were enrolled in the study. The overall incidence of wound infection was 3.0%. The incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in rectal surgery than in colonic surgery (4.7 vs. 2.1%, p<0.001). In rectal surgery, independent risk factors for developing wound infection included abdominoperineal resection (p<0.001, odds ratio [OR]=11.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.04-24.8), body mass index (BMI)>= 25 kg/m(2) (p=0.041, OR=1.97, 95% CI, 1.03-3.76), and chemoradiotherapy (p=0.032, OR=2.18, 95% CI, 1.07-4.45). In laparoscopic colonic surgery, no significant risk factors were identified.ConclusionsLaparoscopic rectal surgery has a higher risk of wound infection than colonic surgery. Laparoscopic rectal surgery involving abdominoperineal resection, patients with higher BMI, and chemoradiotherapy requires careful observation in wound care and countermeasures against wound infection.

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

4.2
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