scholarly journals PHC2 SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND COST OF CARE IN THE ELDERLY UNDERGOING MAJOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. A62
Author(s):  
O Baser ◽  
L Wang ◽  
C Gust ◽  
A Dysinger
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Jahr ◽  
James B. Breitmeyer ◽  
Christine Pan ◽  
Mike A. Royal ◽  
Robert Y. Ang

1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (08) ◽  
pp. 918-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.D. Hull ◽  
G.F Pineo

IntroductionMajor orthopedic surgery, particularly total joint replacement or hip fracture, represents a high risk of future development of postoperative venous thromboembolism and warrants the routine use of prophylaxis with either mechanical devices or pharmacological agents. The aim of prophylaxis is to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and the morbidity of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), particularly the development of post-thrombotic syndrome. Patterns of clinical practice, with respect to the prevention of venous thromboembolism and the appropriate use of anticoagulants for the treatment of thrombotic disease, have been strongly influenced by recent consensus conferences.1,2 Rules of evidence for assessing the literature have been applied to all recommendations regarding the prevention and treatment of thrombotic disease. These results were extrapolated using evidence gleaned from major clinical disorders and are based only on nonrandomized clinical trials or case series.1-3 Data from a large number of Level I clinical trials in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have provided answers to many of the questions regarding prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism. In this review, we will discuss the prevention of venous thromboembolism following orthopedic surgery and discuss some of the controversial issues where further studies are required.


2016 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 560-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshio Yamaguchi ◽  
Hideo Wada ◽  
Shinichi Miyazaki ◽  
Masahiro Hasegawa ◽  
Hiroki Wakabayashi ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1061-1071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie N Melillo ◽  
James V Scanlon ◽  
Benjamin P Exter ◽  
Michael Steinberg ◽  
Courtney I Jarvis

2009 ◽  
pp. 249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karmel L. Tambunan ◽  
Errol U. Hutagalung ◽  
Lugyanti Sukrisman ◽  
Ifran Saleh ◽  
S. B. Gunawan ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaele Franzese ◽  
Michele Conte ◽  
Nicola Gagliardo ◽  
Gorizio Pieretti

Introduction: Prevention of surgical site infection in surgery and bone trauma has some hallmarks not shared with other surgical disciplines. The surgeon is not always able to open the pathogen and a key to correct therapy. The aim of our work is to verify if there are differences between pathogens, and treatment between the two groups most susceptible to skin infections by means of synthesis such as children and the elderly. Materials and Methods: From January 2011 to december 2018, we perform 3189 consultancies in various departments of orthopedics and traumatology. From the exclusion criteria we recruited 168 patients with superficial infection of the surgical site after orthopedic surgery. A group represented by children (under 12 years old) and a group of older people over 65. The evaluation criteria between the two groups were: the infectious bacterial flora; the type of antibiotic, the duration of antibiotic therapy; the type of medications used in the post-operative period, the complications.Results:The results showed that elderly patients are more likely to be bacterial superinfection due to poor hygiene. Therapy in children is shorter and has minor complications. Proper management of the surgical site showed a rapid resolution of the infection in both groups. Conclusion: The correct management and hygiene of the surgical site allows its rapid recovery from infection. The plastic surgeon management of the fracture site infection can be a winning weapon in the treatment of this problem both in the child and in the elderly.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document