Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorSevinc, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorHasbal, Nuri Baris
dc.contributor.authorAhbap, Elbis
dc.contributor.authorKoc, Yener
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-02T18:01:55Z
dc.date.available2020-12-02T18:01:55Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1302-7123
dc.identifier.issn1308-5123
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2019.54837
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/3761
dc.descriptionHasbal, Nuri Baris/0000-0002-2229-5140; sevinc, mustafa/0000-0003-2804-4884en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000500949700009en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 32377113en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Catheter exit-site infection (ESI) is generally caused by skin flora. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients have more contact with their catheters than automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) patients as a result of performing multiple exchanges per day. the aim of the present study was to compare the frequency of ESIs between these 2 peritoneal dialysis (PD) modalities. Methods: PD patients from 2001 to 2015 were enrolled in the study. Patients transferred from CAPD to APD were excluded. All of the data were collected retrospectively. the rate of ESI occurrence and culture results in the CAPD and APD groups were compared. Results: the data of 280 patients were evaluated. APD patients represented 23.2% of the study cohort. Prevalence of peritonitis was 87.6% if a patient had an ESI and 50.7% if there was no ESI (p=0.000). the frequency of ESI was similar between the 2 peritoneal dialysis modalities (p=0.343). There was a statistically significant difference in the causative organism of infection between the 2 groups (p=0.021). Conclusion: the ESI rate was similar in the CAPD and APD patients though CAPD requires more exchanges, and therefore there is more contact with the catheter. All PD patients, regardless of the treatment modality used, are expected to perform exchanges according to standard rules for connecting the catheter to the PD solution bag. As long as patients observe these guidelines, there would appear to be no increased ESI risk related specifically to the modality.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherKare Publen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.14744/SEMB.2019.54837en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAutomated peritoneal dialysisen_US
dc.subjectcontinuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysisen_US
dc.subjectexit-site infectionen_US
dc.subjectperitoneal dialysisen_US
dc.titleComparison of Exit-Site Infection Frequency in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis and Automated Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Single-Center Experienceen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalMedical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospitalen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.volume53en_US
dc.identifier.startpage385en_US
dc.identifier.endpage388en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.department-temp[Sevinc, Mustafa; Ahbap, Elbis] Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training & Res Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Istanbul, Turkey; [Hasbal, Nuri Baris] Hakkari State Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Hakkari, Turkey; [Koc, Yener] Istanbul Bilim Univ, Dept Nephrol, Fac Med, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster