Evaluation of the function and quality of life of patients submitted to girdlestone's resection arthroplasty

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate function and quality of life of patients submitted to Girdlestone's arthroplasty, and to compare outcomes between unilateral Girdlestone's group with the group with contralateral total hip prosthesis. METHODS: Cross-sectional study where 9 patients were evaluated with unilateral Girdlestone's and 3 with Girdlestone's in one hip and contralateral total hip prosthesis. The evaluation consisted in filling in a generic questionnaire on quality of life SF-36 and a specific questionnaire for hip function Harris Hip Score (HHS). The comparison between groups was made by using the Student's t-test and the Fisher's test. RESULTS: The patients of the unilateral Girdlestone's group presented a higher number of SF-36 domains classified as high, although 77.8% of these showed poor results on the HHS. All patients had a leg-length discrepancy and positive Trendelenburg's test, which led to limping gait in 11 of 12 patients evaluated. Of these, only 6 underwent physiotherapy after surgery. CONCLUSION: Girdlestone's postoperative quality of life and function in a Brazilian population still requires further studies, because these outcomes are indicative of study variables' behavior and cannot be regarded as definite.OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a função e a qualidade de vida dos pacientes pós-artroplastia de Girdlestone e comparar os resultados entre os grupos Girdlestone unilateral e o grupo com prótese total de quadril contralateral. MÉTODOS: estudo transversal no qual foram avaliados 9 pacientes com Girdlestone unilateral e 3 com Girdlestone em um quadril e prótese total no quadril contralateral. A avaliação constitui-se em aplicar o questionário genérico de qualidade de vida SF-36 e um questionário funcional específico para o quadril, Harris Hip Score (HHS). A comparação dos grupos foi realizada usando-se o teste t- Student e o teste de Fisher. RESULTADOS: Os pacientes do grupo Girdlestone unilateral apresentaram maior quantidade de domínios do SF-36 classificados como elevados, embora 77,8% destes tenham obtido resultados ruins no HHS. Todos os pacientes apresentaram o teste de Trendelenburg positivo e discrepância de membros, o que levou à marcha claudicante em 11 dos 12 pacientes avaliados. Destes, apenas 6 submeteram-se a fisioterapia pós-operatória. CONCLUSÃO: A qualidade de vida e a função pós-operatória de Girdlestone, na população brasileira, ainda necessita ser mais pesquisada, pois estes resultados são indicações do comportamento das variáveis de estudo e não podem ser consideradas encerradas.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Escola Paulista de Medicina Departamento de Ortopedia e TraumatologiaUNIFESP-EPM DOTUNIFESP, EPM, Depto. de Ortopedia e TraumatologiaUNIFESP, EPM DOTSciEL

Abdominal Wound Dehiscence in Adults: Development and Validation of a Risk Model

Background: Several studies have been performed to identify risk factors for abdominal wound dehiscence. No risk model had yet been developed for the general surgical population. The objective of the present study was to identify independent risk factors for abdominal wound dehiscence and to develop a risk model to recognize high-risk patients. Identification of high-risk patients offers opportunities for intervention strategies. Methods: Medical registers from January 1985 to December 2005 were searched. Patients who had primarily undergone appendectomies or nonsurgical (e.g., urological) operations were excluded. Each patient with abdominal wound dehiscence was matched with three controls by systematic random sampling. Putative relevant patient-related, operation-related, and postoperative variables were evaluated in univariate analysis and subsequently entered in multivariate stepwise logistic regression models to delineate major independent predictors of abdominal wound dehiscence. A risk model was developed, which was validated in a population of patients who had undergone operation between January and December 2006. Results: A total of 363 cases and 1,089 controls were analyzed. Major independent risk factors were age, gender, chronic pulmonary disease, ascites, jaundice, anemia, emergency surgery, type of surgery, postoperative coughing, and wound infection. In the validation population, risk scores were significantly higher (P < 0.001) for patients with abdominal wound dehiscence (n = 19) compared to those without (n = 677). Resulting scores ranged from 0 to 8.5, and the risk for abdominal wound dehiscence over this range increased exponentially from 0.02% to 70.1%. Conclusions: The validated risk model shows high predictive value for abdominal wound dehiscence and may help to identify patients at increased risk