Article

Anatomía quirúrgica y vías de acceso del abdomen

EMC - Técnicas Quirúrgicas - Aparato Digestivo 01/2011; 27(4):1–16. DOI: 10.1016/S1282-9129(11)71184-9

ABSTRACT La variedad de intervenciones que pueden realizarse sobre los órganos contenidos en la cavidad abdominal es tan amplia que existen numerosas formas diferentes de acceder a ellos. Las diferentes laparotomías posibles se adaptan tanto al tipo de órgano al que se va a acceder como a la intervención que se va a realizar; también deben tener en cuenta la anatomía de la pared abdominal, con el fin de ser lo menos agresivas posible. Este artículo presenta sucesivamente la descripción de la anatomía quirúrgica de la pared abdominal anterolateral y del diafragma, los preparativos preoperatorios que permiten realizar la cirugía en las mejores condiciones, los procedimientos de reparación que tienen como objetivo reducir el riesgo de complicaciones parietales y los diferentes tipos de laparotomías empleadas en la cirugía programada.

2 Followers
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Résumé. – Les péritonites postopératoires par désunion anastomotique sont les principales causes de décès postopératoires après chirurgie digestive. La survenue d'une désunion anastomotique n'entraîne pas systématiquement de complications infectieuses et ne réclame pas obligatoirement une réintervention. C'est la survenue d'une infection intrapéritonéale grave qui requiert la réintervention. La mortalité des péritonites postopératoires peut atteindre 60 %. Leur prise en charge efficace requiert de garder à l'esprit des règles simples. Nous nous attardons dans un premier temps sur les signes qui doivent faire évoquer le diagnostic de péritonite postopératoire et la démarche à adapter en cas de doute. Nous rappelons les différentes étiologies des complications infectieuses intrapéritonéales en période postopératoire. Après avoir tenté de préciser les circonstances dans lesquelles un traitement conservateur était indiqué, nous décrivons les principes généraux qui régissent le déroulement d'une réintervention pour péritonite postopératoire. Dans la dernière partie de l'article, nous précisons les différentes techniques chirurgicales qui nous semblent requises pour traiter : une péritonite d'origine jéjuno-iléale, colique, colorectale, gastroduodénale, biliodigestive et pancréaticojéjunale. En dernier lieu, nous précisons les règles que nous pensons à même de diminuer les risques de survenue d'une désunion anastomotique.
    01/2006; 1(1). DOI:10.1016/S0246-0424(03)00055-4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The preparation of people for surgery has traditionally included the routine removal of body hair from the intended surgical wound site. However, there are studies which claim that pre-operative hair removal is deleterious to patients, perhaps by causing surgical site infections (SSIs), and should not be carried out. The primary objective of this review was to determine if routine pre-operative hair removal results in fewer SSIs than not removing hair. The reviewers searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (October 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1980 to 2005), CINAHL (1982 to 2005), and the ZETOC database of conference proceedings (1993 to 2005). We also contacted manufacturers of hair removal products. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hair removal with no hair removal, different methods of hair removal, hair removal conducted at different times prior to surgery and hair removal carried out in different settings. Three authors independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Data was extracted independently by one author and cross checked for accuracy by a second author. Eleven RCTs were included in this review. Three trials involving 625 people compared hair removal using either depilatory cream or razors with no hair removal and found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of surgical site infections. No trials were identified which compared clipping with no hair removal. Three trials involving 3193 people compared shaving with clipping and found that there were statistically significantly more SSIs when people were shaved rather than clipped (RR 2.02, 95%CI 1.21 to 3.36). Seven trials involving 1213 people compared shaving with removing hair using a depilatory cream and found that there were statistically significantly more SSIs when people were shaved than when a cream was used (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.24). No trials were found that compared clipping with a depilatory cream. One trial compared shaving on the day of surgery with shaving the day before surgery and one trial compared clipping on the day of surgery with clipping the day before surgery; neither trial found a statistically significant difference in the number of SSIs. No trials were found that compared depilatory cream at different times or that compared hair removal in different settings. The evidence finds no difference in SSIs among patients who have had hair removed prior to surgery and those who have not. If it is necessary to remove hair then both clipping and depilatory creams results in fewer SSIs than shaving using a razor. There is no difference in SSIs when patients are shaved or clipped one day before surgery or on the day of surgery.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2006; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004122.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection. To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection. We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles. Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery. Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The second smaller study found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively. This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2007; 2(2):CD004985. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004985.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor