Abstract

Objective. To estimate the efficacy of prophylactic method for regional infection while performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using simultaneous application of container for removal of the specimen and a two-ring wound protector of the wound. In accordance to the literature data, the infection rate in laparoscopic cholecystectomy conduction constitutes 2.4 - 9.6%.
 Materials and methods. The work was based on experience of performance of 759 laparoscopic cholecystectomies during the period of 2015 - 2018 yrs. There were performed 679 operations with the second class of microbial contamination, 17 - with the third one and 6 - with the fourth. In 21 patients the conversion into laparotomy was applied. The patients with third and fourth classes of microbial contamination of wounds were divided into two groups: the first - 61 patients, in whom a container was used for the specimen removal, and the second - 19 patients, in whom the method of combined application of container and the wound protector was applied for removal of the specimen.
 Results. Infection of region of the surgical intervention performance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy was revealed in 41 (5.40%) of 759 patients.In surgical interventions In surgical interventions, referring to second class of microbial contamination , the infection rate in the surgical intervention region have constituted 2,5%, while referring to the third class - 11.76%, and the fourth class - 34.92%. Conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is accompanied with high rate of the wound infection - 38.09%.
 Conclusion. Application of the method of combined usage of container for removal of preparation and a two-ring protector of the wound in the third and the fourth classes of the wounds while performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy have permitted to lower the infection rate in region of the surgical intervention performance from 37.70 to 5.26%.

Highlights

  • The work was based on experience of performance

  • fourth classes of microbial contamination of wounds were divided into two groups

  • in whom a container was used for the specimen removal

Read more

Summary

Introduction

При «чистых» операциях (первый класс микробной контаминации) [4, 5] инфицирование раны возможно только извне, а не изнутри, что и обусловливает высокую эффективность используемых мер. Если раны относятся к третьему классу микробной контаминации («контаминированные»), то при наличии инфицирования брюшной полости (интраоперационная перфорация ЖП, некроз ЖП без перитонита) [6] простое помещение ЖП в контейнер не приводит к изоляции его от краев раны, так как контейнер в брюшной полости инфицируется также и снаружи и при извлечении его из брюшной полости через троакарную или расширенную рану возможно инфицирование раны от внешних стенок контейнера. При операциях четвертого класса микробной контаминации («грязные или инфицированные»), когда имеются гнойное воспаление ЖП, эмпиема с интраоперационной пункцией ЖП, перивезикальные абсцессы, перитонит, чаще всего рана в брюшной стенке не является инфицированной непосредственно после входа в брюшную полость, так как инфекция чаще всего локализована в правом подреберье.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call