medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2021, Number 07

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (07)

Complications gynecological surgery in patients olders than 60 years

Vázquez-Rodríguez JG, del Ángel-García G, Santos HOC

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 540-548
PDF size: 206.52 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify complications of gynecologic surgery in patients older than 60 years.
Materiales and Methods: Observational, longitudinal, retrospective and descriptive study of a case series of patients over 60 years of age with gynecological surgery performed between 2015 and 2018 who resulted with complications of the operative technique or medical complications that merited postoperative intensive care. Descriptive statistics were used with SPSS version 20 software.
Results: 19 patients aged 71.52 ± 7.23 years were studied. Preoperative diagnoses: pelvic statics disorders 6 of 19, noncancerous tumors 6 of 19, abscesses 5 of 19 and postmenopausal uterine bleeding 2 of 19. Operative complications: hemorrhage n = 7, sepsis n = 6, bladder injury n = 1, ureteral injury n = 1, hemorrhage with sepsis n = 1. Medical complications: diabetic ketoacidosis n = 1, angina pectoris n = 1, transient hypotension without shock n = 1). Intensive care unit complications: re- sidual abscess n = 2, contained eventration n = 1, necrotizing fasciitis n = 1, infected surgical wound n = 1.
Conclusion: The most frequent complications were those of the operative type followed by those that emerged during the stay in critical care. The experience suggests the convenience of caring for patients over 60 years of age in the postoperative period of gynecologic surgery in an intensive care unit, particularly when there are severe infectious processes or prolonged interventions with technical difficulties and bleeding.


REFERENCES

  1. Población, Hogares y Vivienda. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. México. https://www.inegi.org.mx/ temas/estructura/

  2. Diagnóstico socio-demográfico del envejecimiento en México. Serie documentos técnicos, 2011. https://mexico.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ Envejecimiento_F_14oct11.pdf

  3. López-Olmos J. Cirugía ginecológica en la anciana mayor de 80 años. Experiencia de 47 casos en 6 años. Clin Invest Gin Obst 2005; 32 (1): 2-9. https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-clinica- e-investigacion-ginecologia-obstetricia-7-pdf-13072291

  4. Mann WJ, Sharp HT, Eckler K. Complications of gynecologic surgery. UpToDate, 2015; 4-9. https://www.uptodate.com/ contents/complications-of-gynecologic-surgery

  5. Monk BJ, Berman ML, Montz FJ. Adhesions after extensive gynecologic surgery: clinical significance, etiology, and prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (5): 1396-403. https:// www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(13)90479-8/fulltext

  6. Vakili B, Chesson R, Kyle BL, Shobeiri A, Echols K T, Gist R, et al. The incidence of urinary tract injury during hysterectomy: A prospective analysis based on universal cystoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (5): 1599-604. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/7839768_The_incidence_ of_urinary_tract_injury_during_hysterectomy_A_prospective_ analysis_based_on_universal_cystoscopy

  7. Yahchouchy-Chouillard EK, Aura T, Picone O, Fingerhut A, Etienne JC, Fingerhut A. Incisional hernias. I. Related risk factors. Dig Surg 2003; 20: 3-9. https://www.karger.com/ Article/Pdf/68850

  8. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 229-35. https://www. nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/nejmsa021721

  9. Recari E, Oroz LC, Lara JA. Complicaciones de la cirugía ginecológica. An Sist Sanit Navar 2009; 32 (Supl 1): 65-79. http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/asisna/v32s1/ginecologia7.pdf

  10. Monroy-López F, Calderón-Meza JM, Rodríguez-Cogollo R, Barrasa-Villar JI, López-Ibort N, Castán-Ruiz S, et al. Incidencia de eventos adversos posquirúrgicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. Rev Calid Asist 2013; 28 (1): 3-11. https:// www.elsevier.es/es-revista-revista-calidad-asistencial- 256-pdf-S1134282X12000498

  11. Cannon JW. Hemorrhagic shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 370-79. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/ NEJMra1705649

  12. Carson JL, Guyatt G, Heddle NM, Grossman BJ, Cohn CS, Fung MK, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines from the AABB: red blood cell transfusion thresholds and storage. JAMA 2016; 316 (19): 2025-35. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ jama/article-abstract/2569055

  13. Guía para el uso clínico de la sangre. México. Secretaría de Salud, 2007. http://www.salud.gob.mx/cnts/pdfs/ GuiaParaElUsoClinicoDeLaSangre.pdf

  14. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 165-228. https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8

  15. Vázquez-Rodríguez JG, Aguilera-Maldonado LV. Aclaramiento de la creatinina en pacientes preeclámpticas con síndrome HELLP. Clin Invest Gin Obstet 2018; 45 (3): 114-20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0210573X17300023




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com