Ufuk Aydin1, Alper Gorur2, Orhan Findik2, Abdullah Yildirim3, Cevdet Ugur Kocogullari2. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kocaeli Derince Training and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey nesruf@isnet.net.tr. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kocaeli Derince Training and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kocaeli Derince Training and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Lymphatic complications, lymphocele and lymphorrhea being the leading, are generally encountered after vascular interventions and surgeries. The present study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of vacuum-assisted-closure (VAC) therapy, which we frequently prefer as the first-choice treatment for such complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention or surgery between January 2008 and February 2012, the medical files of 21 patients who received VAC therapy or other treatment due to symptomatic lymphatic complications were retrospectively analyzed and the results were discussed. RESULTS: Group I consisted of 10 patients (three with lymphocele and seven with lymphorrhea) who underwent VAC therapy as the first-choice treatment, Group II consisted of 11 patients of which 7 patients received various therapies before VAC therapy and 4 patients received other treatments alone. The patients who received VAC therapy as the primary therapy demonstrated more rapid wound healing, early drainage control, and shorter hospital stay. The mean hospital medical cost was €1038 (range, €739-1826) for the patients who primarily underwent VAC therapy; it was calculated to be €2137 (range, €1610-3130) for the other patients (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In addition to its safety and good clinical outcomes, VAC therapy also has economic advantages and should be the primary method for the treatment of lymphatic complications.
OBJECTIVES: Lymphatic complications, lymphocele and lymphorrhea being the leading, are generally encountered after vascular interventions and surgeries. The present study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of vacuum-assisted-closure (VAC) therapy, which we frequently prefer as the first-choice treatment for such complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention or surgery between January 2008 and February 2012, the medical files of 21 patients who received VAC therapy or other treatment due to symptomatic lymphatic complications were retrospectively analyzed and the results were discussed. RESULTS: Group I consisted of 10 patients (three with lymphocele and seven with lymphorrhea) who underwent VAC therapy as the first-choice treatment, Group II consisted of 11 patients of which 7 patients received various therapies before VAC therapy and 4 patients received other treatments alone. The patients who received VAC therapy as the primary therapy demonstrated more rapid wound healing, early drainage control, and shorter hospital stay. The mean hospital medical cost was €1038 (range, €739-1826) for the patients who primarily underwent VAC therapy; it was calculated to be €2137 (range, €1610-3130) for the other patients (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In addition to its safety and good clinical outcomes, VAC therapy also has economic advantages and should be the primary method for the treatment of lymphatic complications.