Objective To determine the clinical effectiveness of wound edge protection devices in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery.Design Multicentre observer blinded randomised controlled trial.Participants Patients undergoing laparotomy at 21 UK hospitals.Interventions Standard care or the use of a wound edge protection device during surgery.Main outcome measures Surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, assessed by blinded clinicians at seven and 30 days and by patient’s self report for the intervening period. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, duration of stay in hospital, and the effect of characteristics of the patient and operation on the efficacy of the device.Results 760 patients were enrolled with 382 patients assigned to the device group and 378 to the control group. Six patients in the device group and five in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Fourteen patients, seven in each group, were lost to follow-up. A total of 184 patients experienced surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, 91/369 (24.7%) in the device group and 93/366 (25.4%) in the control group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.36; P=0.85). This lack of benefit was consistent across wound assessments performed by clinicians and those reported by patients and across all secondary outcomes. In the secondary analyses no subgroup could be identified in which there was evidence of clinical benefit associated with use of the device.Conclusions Wound edge protection devices do not reduce the rate of surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparotomy, and therefore their routine use for this role cannot be recommended.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 40402832

Complete tumor removal was achieved in 289 of 441 (66%) patients with peritoneal dissemination from perforated appendiceal tumors with good long-term survival and probable cure in more than two-thirds.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is commonly performed, and several factors increase the

Background: Up to 15 per cent of colorectal cancers present with peritoneal metastases (CPM). Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) aims to achieve macroscopic tumour resection combined with HIPEC to destroy microscopic disease. CRS + HIPEC is a major operation with significant morbidity and effects on quality of life (QoL). Improving patient selection is crucial to maximize patient outcomes while minimizing morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors for patients with CPM undergoing CRS + HIPEC. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases was performed using terms for colorectal cancer, peritoneal metastasis and CRS + HIPEC. Included studies focused on the impact of prognostic factors on overall survival following CRS + HIPEC in patients with CPM. Results: Twenty-four studies described 3128 patients. Obstruction or perforation of the primary tumour (hazard ratio (HR) 2⋅91, 95 per cent c.i. 1⋅5 to 5⋅65), extent of peritoneal metastasis as described by the Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) (per increase of 1 PCI point: HR 1⋅07, 1⋅02 to 1⋅12) and the completeness of cytoreduction (CC score above zero: HR 1⋅75, 1⋅18 to 2⋅59) were associated with reduced overall survival after CRS + HIPEC. Conclusion: Primary tumour obstruction or perforation, PCI score and CC score are valuable prognostic factors in the selection of patients with CPM for CRS + HIPEC.

Evidence to date suggests that WEPDs may be efficient in reducing SSI rates in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. However, the poor quality of the existing studies and their small sample sizes raise the need for a large, good quality randomized controlled trial to validate this indication.

Readmissions and complications following cholecystectomy are common and associated with patient and disease characteristics.

Systemic adjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with improved overall survival, but the role of systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy cannot be determined by the currently available evidence. The delivery of a combination of the two modes of systemic chemotherapy has not been investigated in a randomized controlled trial to date. Further research designed to investigate the role of these modalities in the patient's treatment is required.

Background Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site. Methods In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964.