The Experts below are selected from a list of 689748 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
A. Lyons - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Background Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds. Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative Pressure System was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded. Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative Pressure System, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01). Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative Pressure System to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.
Hakan Oral - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
conversion of positive Pressure cardiac catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories to a novel 2 zone negative Pressure System during covid 19 pandemic
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2020Co-Authors: Monica Truesdell, Paul Guttman, Barbara Clarke, Sherryl Wagner, Jim Bloom, Jeff Dushane, Linda Richardson, Kristen Vanderelzen, Stanley Chetcuti, Hakan OralAbstract:: During COVID-19 pandemic, there continues to be a need to utilize cardiac catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories for emergent and urgent procedures. Per infection prevention guidelines, and hospital codes, catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories are usually built as positive Pressure ventilation rooms to minimize the infection risk. However, patients with highly transmissible airborne diseases such as COVID-19 are best cared in negative ventilation rooms to minimize the risk of transmission. From mechanical and engineering perspective, positive Pressure ventilation rooms cannot be readily converted to negative Pressure ventilation rooms. In this report, we describe a novel, quick, readily implantable and resource friendly approach on how to secure air quality in catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories by converting a positive Pressure ventilation room to a 2-zone negative ventilation System to minimize the risk of transmission. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
-
conversion of positive Pressure cardiac catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories to a novel 2 zone negative Pressure System during covid 19 pandemic
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2020Co-Authors: Monica Truesdell, Paul Guttman, Barbara Clarke, Sherryl Wagner, Jim Bloom, Jeff Dushane, Linda Richardson, Kristen Vanderelzen, Stanley Chetcuti, Hakan OralAbstract:During coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there continues to be a need to utilize cardiac catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories for emergent and urgent procedures. Per infection prevention guidelines and hospital codes, catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories are usually built as positive-Pressure ventilation rooms to minimize the infection risk. However, patients with highly transmissible airborne diseases such as COVID-19 are best caredfor in negative ventilation rooms to minimize the risk of transmission. From a mechanical and engineering perspective, positive-Pressure ventilation rooms cannot be readily converted to negative-Pressure ventilation rooms. In this report, we describe a novel, quick, readily implantable, and resource-friendly approach on how to secure air quality in catheterization and electrophysiology laboratories by converting a positive-Pressure ventilation room to a two-zone negative ventilation System to minimize the risk of transmission.
H. Sumrien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Background Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds. Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative Pressure System was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded. Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative Pressure System, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01). Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative Pressure System to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.
K. Mccarthy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Background Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds. Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative Pressure System was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded. Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative Pressure System, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01). Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative Pressure System to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.
A. Pullyblank - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Background Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.
-
the use of a negative Pressure wound management System in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision elape for low rectal cancer
Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016Co-Authors: H. Sumrien, C. Burt, A. Pullyblank, A. Dixon, K. Mccarthy, P. Newman, A. LyonsAbstract:Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative Pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative Pressure System has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative Pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds. Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative Pressure System was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded. Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative Pressure System, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01). Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative Pressure System to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.