PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-2 (2)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Is Closed-suction Drainage Necessary for Single-level Lumbar Decompression?: Review of 560 Cases 
Background
Closed-suction drainage is commonly used for prevention of postoperative hematoma and associated neurologic compromise after lumbar decompression, but it remains unclear whether suction drainage reduces postoperative complications.
Questions/purposes
We evaluated the efficacy of closed-suction drainage in single-level lumbar decompression surgery.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 560 patients who underwent single-level lumbar decompression or discectomy. We routinely used closed-suction drainage in all spinal surgeries until July 2003, and thereafter, we did not use drains in single-level lumbar decompression surgery. These two groups (298 patients in the group that received drains, 262 in the group that did not receive drains) were compared for rates of wound infection and epidural hematoma.
Results
Mean operating time (55 versus 56 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss (64 versus 57 mL) were not different between the two groups. None of 560 patients had a wound infection requiring surgical intervention. The rate of postoperative hematoma was 0.7% in the group that received drains (two of 298 patients) and 0% in the group that did not receive drains (zero of 262 patients).
Conclusions
In this study, the risk of wound infection and hematomas in single-level lumbar decompression surgery was not influenced by use of a drain. The use of postoperative wound drainage in patients with potential risk for epidural bleeding in situations such as multiple-level decompression, instrumentation surgery, anticoagulant therapy, trauma, and tumors or metastases needs additional study.
Level of Evidence
Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1235-6
PMCID: PMC3049608  PMID: 20091386
2.  Comparison of five-day Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens: rabeprazole-based and omeprazole-based regimens with and without omeprazole pretreatment 
Background: The onset of antisecretory activity of rabeprazole is faster than that of omeprazole.
Objective: This study was performed to compare the efficacy of short-term rabeprazole-based triple therapy with that of omeprazole-based triple therapy and to determine the influence of omeprazole pretreatment in omeprazole-based short-term triple therapy.
Methods: This was a 2-center, open-label, prospective, randomized study. Patients who tested positive for Helicobacter (formerly Campylobacter) pylori were randomized to one of three 5-day regimens: (1) rabeprazole 20 mg BID, amoxicillin 500 mg TID, and clarithromycin 400 mg BID (RAC group); (2) omeprazole 20 mg BID, amoxicillin 500 mg TID, and clarithromycin 400 mg BID without omeprazole pretreatment (OAC1 group); and (3) omeprazole 20 mg BID, amoxicillin 500 mg TID, and clarithromycin 400 mg BID with 5 days of omeprazole pretreatment 20 mg BID (OAC2 group). Eradication was assessed by 13C-urea breath test and rapid urease test ∼1 month after completion of treatment. All patients who entered this study were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, patients who completed the study were included in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, and patients who did not undergo the 13C-urea breath test and rapid urease test were included in the all-patients-treated (APT) analysis.
Results: A total of 120 patients (86 men, 34 women; mean [SD] age, 55.8 [14.3] years; range, 19–86 years) were assigned to the RAC, OAC1, or OAC2 group (40 patients in each group). ITT, PP, and APT eradication rates in the RAC group were 90%, 92%, and 90%, respectively; in the OAC1 group, 75%, 83%, and 75%; and in the OAC2 group, 85%, 90%, and 87%. These eradication rates were not significantly different between groups.
Conclusions: Eradication rates did not differ significantly between the three 5-day proton pump inhibitor–based triple therapies in this study population. However, 5-day rabeprazole-based triple therapy tends to be more effective than 5-day omeprazole-based triple therapy in the eradication of H pylori, and treatment with omeprazole before eradication therapy may improve the eradication rates of 5-day omeprazole-based therapy.
doi:10.1016/S0011-393X(03)00120-6
PMCID: PMC4053033  PMID: 24944392
eradication therapy; Helicobacter pylori; omeprazole; rabeprazole

Results 1-2 (2)