4.1 Article

Long subcutaneous tunnelling reduces infection rates in paediatric external ventricular drains

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1671-1678

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-014-2523-3

关键词

EVD; Ventricular drain; Infection; Hydrocephalus; Tunnelled; Ventriculostomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to report the efficacy of long subcutaneous tunnelling of external ventricular drains in reducing rates of infection and catheter displacement in a paediatric population. In children requiring external ventricular drainage, a long-tunnelled drain was placed and managed according to a locally agreed guideline. End points were novel CSF infection incurred during the time of drainage and re-operation to re-site displaced catheters. Data were compared to other published series. One hundred eighty-one long-tunnelled external ventricular drains (LTEVDs) were inserted. The mean age was 6.6 years (range 0-15.5 years). Reasons for insertion included intraventricular haemorrhage (47 %), infection (27 %), tumour-related hydrocephalus (7.2 %), as a temporising measure (17 %) and trauma (2.2 %). The overall new infection rate for LTEVD was 2.76 %. If the 48 cases where LTEVDs were inserted to treat an existing infection are excluded, the infection rate was 3.8 % (5/133). The mean duration of insertion was 10 days (range 0-42 days). Four LTEVDs (2.2 %) were inadvertently dislodged, requiring reinsertion. Thirteen patients required removal of EVD alone. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing our infection rate to 14 publications of infection rates in short-tunnelled EVDs; however, there was no difference when comparing our data to three publications using LTEVDs. The use of an antibiotic-impregnated LTEVD, managed according to a predefined guideline, is associated with significantly reduced infection and displacement rates when compared with contemporary series. It is suggested that this reduction is of both clinical and economic benefits.

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

4.1
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