Validación de un modelo de riesgo de evisceración

Introduction

The aim of this study is to determine the usefulness of the risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al., and a modification of the same, to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions.

Materials and methods

Observational longitudinal retrospective study. Sample: Patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions in the General and Digestive Surgery Department of the Sabadell's Hospital–Parc Taulí’s Health and University Corporation–Barcelona, between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010. Dependent variable: Abdominal wound dehiscence. Independent variables: Global risk score, preoperative risk score (postoperative variables were excluded), global and preoperative probabilities of developing abdominal wound dehiscence.

Results

Sample: 176 patients. Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: 15 (8.5%). The global risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 4.97; IC 95%: 4.15-5.79) was better than the global risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.41; IC 95%: 3.20-3.62). This difference is statistically significant (P<.001). The preoperative risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.27; IC 95%: 2.69-3.84) was better than the preoperative risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 2.77; IC 95%: 2.64-2.89), also a statistically significant difference (P<.05). The global risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.79) has better accuracy than the preoperative risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.64).

Conclusion

The risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al. to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in the preoperative phase has a limited usefulness. Additional refinements in the preoperative risk score are needed to improve its accuracy.     

Importancia de la exploración física y técnicas de imagen en la valoración diagnóstica de las fístulas de ano

Aim

The study was designed to determine the role of clinical examination and imaging techniques in the diagnosis of anorectal fistula.

Material and methods

We performed an observational study with prospective recruiting using the data of 120 patients, by means of clinical evaluation by an experienced coloproctologist surgeon (EE), a surgeon without special training in coloproctology (CE), and examination under anaesthesia (SE), endoanal ultrasound (EAU) and magnetic resonance (MR), using the surgical findings as a reference.

Results

SE was significantly better than EE or CE for detecting an internal opening (IO), primary track and abscess cavities (AC). EAU was significantly more sensitive and accurate than the EE in identifying an IO, and AC, but not compared to the SE. MR was more sensitive than the EE in the identification of the IO, transphincter and suprasphincter tracks and AC with no significant differences compared to EAU, and more sensitive than the SE to detect AC.

Conclusions

Examination under anaesthesia still has a place in the evaluation of anorectal fistula. Imaging methods are an occasional complement to a clinical evaluation that can help the less experienced to decide the appropriate treatment, particularly when a complex fistula is suspected.