کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
2627402 1136075 2011 6 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Comparison of recognition tools for postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracotomy
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم پزشکی و سلامت پزشکی و دندانپزشکی طب مکمل و جایگزین
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Comparison of recognition tools for postoperative pulmonary complications following thoracotomy
چکیده انگلیسی

ObjectivesTo evaluate the recognition of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) following thoracotomy and lung resection using three PPC scoring tools.DesignProspective observational study.SettingRegional thoracic centre.ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty-nine consecutive thoracotomy and lung resection patients (October 2007 and April 2008).Main outcome measuresPPC assessment was performed on a daily basis using three sets of criteria described by Brooks-Brunn, Gosselink et al. and Reeve et al.: the Brooks-Brunn Score (BBS), Gosselink Score (GS) and Melbourne Group Scale (MGS), respectively. The results were compared with treatment for PPC and clinical outcomes including mortality, postoperative length of stay and high dependency unit length of stay.ResultsPPC frequency was 13% (17/129) with the MGS, 6% (8/129) with the GS and 40% (51/129) with the BBS. The clinically observed incidence of treated (requiring antibiotic therapy or bronchoscopy) PPC was 12% (16/129).ConclusionPPC treatment following thoracotomy is common. Of the three scoring tools, the MGS outperforms the BBS and the GS in terms of PPC recognition following thoracotomy and lung resection. Patients with a PPC-positive MGS score have a worse outcome as defined by mortality, high dependency unit length of stay and postoperative length of stay. The MGS is an easy-to-use multidisciplinary scoring tool, but further work is required into its use in minimally invasive surgery and in targeting high-risk groups for therapy.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Physiotherapy - Volume 97, Issue 4, December 2011, Pages 278–283
نویسندگان
, , , , , , , , ,