Purpose
Typical nutritional assessment criteria and screening tools are ineffective in mechanically ventilated patients who are often unable to report their food intake history. The Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score is effective for screening mechanically ventilated patients. This prospective observational study was conducted to identify nutritional risk in mechanically ventilated patients using a modified NUTRIC (mNUTRIC) score (without using interleukin-6 values).
Methods
All adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 48 hours were included in the study. Data were collected on the variables required to calculate mNUTRIC scores. Patients with mNUTRIC scores ≥5 were considered at high nutritional risk. The assessment data included total ICU length of stay, ventilator-free days, and mortality rates.
Results and conclusion
A total of 75 patients fit the inclusion criteria of the study, including 40 males and 35 females. The mean age was 55.8 years. Forty-five percent of mechanically ventilated patients had mNUTRIC scores ≥5. Mechanically ventilated patients with mNUTRIC scores ≥5 had longer lengths of stay in the ICU (mean ± SD = 11.5±5 days) as compared with 3.5±4 days in patients with mNUTRIC scores ≤4. Moreover, a higher mortality rate (26%) was observed in patients with mNUTRIC scores ≥5. A high mNUTRIC predicted mortality score shows a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.637 with a confidence interval between 0.399 and 0.875. Forty-five percent of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU were at nutritional risk, and their mNUTRIC scores were directly related to higher lengths of stay and mortality.
Objective: To review the experience of single-stage reconstruction following pharygolaryngectomy and cervical esophageal defect with pedicle flaps in a tertiary care centre. Study Design: Retrospective study.
Background:
Electrical injuries of the scalp are a frequent occurrence in developing countries. Burns can be contact or conductive and result in extensive tissue damage. The authors present their experience with treatment of scalp and calvarial electrical injuries and propose a management algorithm.
Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study comprising all patients with electrical injuries of the scalp treated at the authors’ center between January of 2010 and December of 2016. Noncontrast computed tomography scans were obtained to assess viability of the calvarium in patients who presented more than 2 weeks after injury. Single-stage débridement and reconstruction were performed. All nonviable soft tissue and bone was removed. Soft-tissue reconstruction was performed with skin grafts, local scalp flaps, pedicled trapezius flaps, and free flaps (anterolateral thigh, latissimus dorsi, and scapular). Cranioplasty was performed in a delayed manner with autologous bone grafts.
Results:
Over a 7-year period, a total of 52 patients underwent scalp reconstruction for high-voltage (44 patients) and low-voltage (eight patients) electrical injury. All patients underwent successful soft-tissue reconstruction. Osteomyelitis with draining sinuses developed in three patients; these patients underwent flap re-elevation and bone débridement, which resulted in a healed wound and stable reconstruction. Cranioplasty was performed with split calvarial grafts in two patients and split rib grafts in four patients. One patient underwent scalp tissue expansion for hair restoration.
Conclusion:
The authors propose an algorithm for reconstruction of electrical injuries of the scalp. Thorough débridement of the calvarium is the most important determinant of a successful outcome.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Therapeutic, IV.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.