{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02482544608223429, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012412723041117145, 'mean_word_length': 5.172248803827751, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Aortic graft infection: the value of percutaneous drainage.

OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to compare patients with aortic graft infection treated by primary percutaneous drainage with patients who initially underwent surgery.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective review of 23 consecutive patients treated for aortic graft infection was performed. Eleven patients were initially treated with percutaneous drainage and 12 were treated with surgery. The morbidity, mortality, and postprocedural reintervention rates and clinical outcome were analyzed for each group.


RESULTS
The septic process resolved in nine (82%) of 11 patients treated with percutaneous drainage. Of these nine patients, four were treated with percutaneous drainage alone. Drainage was followed by removal of the infected prosthetic graft in the remaining five patients. In the surgical group, sepsis resolved in only four patients (33%) (p = .036). No periprocedural deaths occurred in the percutaneous drainage group, whereas six patients in the surgical group died in the perioperative period (p = .014).


CONCLUSION
Percutaneous drainage can be used as an initial form of treatment in the management of aortic graft infections. Surgery after percutaneous drainage appears to be safer than surgery alone.