7 research outputs found

    Monopolar tonsillotomy versus cold dissection tonsillectomy in children : Prospective study on postoperative recovery

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To compare postoperative self-reported recovery results with monopolar tonsillotomy and cold dissection tonsillectomy in children. To evaluate the feasibility of the monopolar technique in tonsillotomy. Methods: Children Results: Altogether 166 patients were recruited; 103 (62%) returned the questionnaire. The first pain-free day with tonsillotomy was day 5 and with tonsillectomy day 11. After tonsillotomy, patients returned to normal activities faster, e.g. they were able to eat normally 6.5 days earlier than tonsillectomy patients. During the first postoperative week weight dropped after tonsillectomy, but not after tonsillotomy. The length of home care was 6 days with tonsillotomy and 10 days with tonsillectomy. The incidence of postoperative hemorrhage (including minor bleedings at home) was 14% after tonsillotomy and 32% after tonsillectomy. Hemorrhages needing interventions were 0% with tonsillotomy and 2% with tonsillectomy. Conclusion: Children operated on with monopolar tonsillotomy recovered faster and had less postoperative hemorrhage than those undergoing tonsillectomy. They were able to return earlier to daycare/school and their caregivers back to work. Recovery results with monopolar tonsillotomy were equal to other tonsillotomy techniques reported in the literature, hence the monopolar technique can be considered an alternative method to perform tonsillotomy.Peer reviewe

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore