Validation of abdominal wound dehiscence's risk model

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 l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Díaz, CJG, Cladera, PR, Soto, SN, Rosas, JMH, Aufroy, AL, Vioque, SM, Cantarín, CC
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2014
País:España
Institución:Institut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT)
Repositorio:r-I3PT. Repositorio Institucional Producción Científica del Institut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí
OAI Identifier:oai:i3pt.fundanetsuite.com:p6357
Acceso en línea:https://i3pt.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/6357
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Abdominal wound dehiscence
Risk factors
Risk model
Postoperative complications
Descripción
Sumario: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 Tauli'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. (C) 2012 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.