4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk factors for intra-abdominal septic complications after a first ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease: A multivariate analysis in 161 consecutive patients

期刊

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 331-336

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0782-0

关键词

Crohn's disease; surgery; anastomotic leakage; postoperative complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess predictive factors of postoperative intra-abdominal septic complication in a homogenous group of patients undergoing ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease. METHODS: From 1984 to 2004, 161 consecutive patients with Crohn's disease (81 males; mean age, 3 3 +/- 10 years) underwent, as a first operation, an elective ileocecal resection without temporary stoma. Postoperatively, 15 patients (9 percent) developed abdominal septic complications, including abscess and anastomotic leaks. Possible factors for postoperative intra-abdominal septic complication were analyzed by both univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: There was no postoperative death. Multivariate analysis found only four independent factors associated with a higher risk of postoperative intra-abdominal septic complication: poor nutritional status (odds ratio, 6.23 (1.75-22.52)), intraabdominal abscess discovered during surgery (odds ratio, 7.47 (1.5-37.69)), preoperative steroids use more than three months (odds ratio, 5.95 (1.04-34.1)), and recurrent clinical episode of Crohn's disease (odds ratio (per episode), 1.38 (1.03-1.9)). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent clinical episode of Crohn's disease, preoperative steroids use, poor nutritional status, and the presence of abscess at the time of surgery significantly increased the risk of septic abdominal complications after first ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease. Knowledge of these risk factors could permit to propose a temporary stoma in very high-risk patients (i.e., with 3 or more risk factors).

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

4.5
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