Title |
Does umbilical contamination correlate with colorectal surgery patient outcomes?
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, November 2019
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00384-019-03443-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Justin T. Brady, Alison R. Althans, Madhuri Nishtala, Scott R. Steele, Sharon L. Stein, Harry L. Reynolds, Conor P. Delaney, Emily Steinhagen |
Abstract |
Most preoperative assessment tools to evaluate risk for postoperative complications require multiple data points to be collected and can be logistically burdensome. This study evaluated if umbilical contamination, a simple bedside assessment, correlated with surgical outcomes. A 6-point score to measure umbilical contamination was developed and applied prospectively to patients undergoing colorectal surgery at an academic medical center. There were 200 patients enrolled (mean age 58.1 ± 14.8; 56% female). The mean BMI was 28.6 ± 7.4. Indications for surgery included colon cancer (24%), rectal cancer (18%), diverticulitis (13.5%), and Crohn's disease (12.5%). Umbilical contamination scores were 0 (23%, cleanest), 1 (26%), 2 (21%), 3 (24%), 4 (6%), and 5 (0%, dirtiest). Umbilical contamination did not correlate with preoperative functional status (p > 0.2). Umbilical contamination correlated with increased length of stay (rho = 0.19, p = 0.007) and postoperative complications (OR 1.3, 1.02-1.7, p = 0.04), but not readmission (p = 0.3) or discharge disposition (p > 0.2). Sterile preparation of the abdomen is an important component of proper surgical technique and umbilical contamination correlates with increased postoperative complications. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 34 | 47% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 5% |
Australia | 4 | 5% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
Brazil | 1 | 1% |
Mexico | 1 | 1% |
Singapore | 1 | 1% |
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Other | 5 | 7% |
Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 33 | 45% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 27 | 37% |
Scientists | 11 | 15% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
Other | 3 | 13% |
Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
Researcher | 2 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
Other | 5 | 22% |
Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 52% |
Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
Engineering | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 7 | 30% |