Compared with the previous retrospective studies of this department, the implementation of looped PDS decreased the incidence of SSI by one-half, whether the suture was triclosan-coated or not. It seems that patient factors are less important than operative factors in the occurrence of SSI, and there were no differences between elective colon and rectal operations in the development of incisional infections. No beneficial effect of triclosan against gram-positive bacteria, which has been reported in the literature, could be confirmed in our study. We could not show an effect against gram-negative enteric microorganisms. Higher additional costs and longer hospital stay with SSI were confirmed.
Mesh repair provides better results than suture repair. In case of large hernias the recurrence rate is higher after sublay reconstruction. The randomized trial was registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov - ID number: NCT01018524.
Background
There is no consensus regarding the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OABP) in reducing postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of OABP given in addition to MBP in the setting of a prospective randomized trial.
Methods
Patients awaiting elective colorectal surgery in four Hungarian colorectal centres were included in this multicentre, prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. Patients were randomized to receive MBP with or without OABP (OABP+ and OABP– groups respectively). The primary endpoints were surgical-site infection (SSI) and postoperative ileus. Secondary endpoints were anastomotic leak, mortality, and hospital readmission within 30 days.
Results
Of 839 patients assessed for eligibility between November 2016 and June 2018, 600 were randomized and 529 were analysed. Trial participation was discontinued owing to adverse events in seven patients in the OABP+ group (2.3 per cent). SSI occurred in eight patients (3.2 per cent) in the OABP+ and 27 (9.8 per cent) in the OABP– group (P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ileus did not differ between groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (1.6 per cent) in the OABP+ and 13 (4.7 per cent) in the OABP– (P = 0.02) group. There were no differences in hospital readmission (12 (4.7 per cent) versus 10 (3.6 per cent); P = 0.25) or mortality (3 (1.2 per cent) versus 4 (1.4 per cent); P = 0.39).
Conclusion
OABP given with MBP reduced the rate of SSI and AL after colorectal surgery with anastomosis, therefore routine use of OABP is recommended.
Beneficial effect of triclosan against Gram positive bacteria could not be confirmed in our study due to the relatively low number of patients with SSI. Furthermore, triclosan did not influence the incidence of SSI due to Gram negative bacteria. SSI rate decreased by 50% compared to our previous study, however, it was regardless of the use of coated or uncoated PDS loop. Finally, operative factors were more important than patient's risk factors in terms of incidence of SSI. In case SSI developed, delayed discharge from hospital as well as special wound care significantly increased overall cost of treatment.
IntroductionAcute abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) or burst abdomen is a severe complication after abdominal surgery with an incidence up to 3.8%. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the biggest risk factor for the development of AWD. It is strongly suggested that the use of triclosan-coated sutures (TCS) for wound closure reduces the risk of SSI. We hypothesise that the use of TCS for abdominal wound closure may reduce the risk of AWD. Current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lack power to investigate this. Therefore, the purpose of this individual participant data meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of TCS for abdominal wound closure on the incidence of AWD.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs investigating the effect of TCS compared with non-coated sutures for abdominal wound closure in adult participants scheduled for open abdominal surgery. Two independent reviewers will assess eligible studies for inclusion and methodological quality. Authors of eligible studies will be invited to collaborate and share individual participant data. The primary outcome will be AWD within 30 days after surgery requiring reoperation. Secondary outcomes include SSI, all-cause reoperations, length of hospital stay and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery. Data will be analysed with a one-step approach, followed by a two-step approach. In the one-step approach, treatment effects will be estimated as a risk ratio with corresponding 95% CI in a generalised linear mixed model framework with a log link and binomial distribution assumption. The quality of evidence will be judged using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThe medical ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC in the Netherlands waived the necessity for a formal approval of this study, as this research does not fall under the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act. Collaborating investigators will deidentify data before sharing. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019121173.
Absztrakt:
A rectum jó- és korai rosszindulatú elváltozásainak kivizsgálási, sebészeti
kezelési, valamint betegkövetési elveit foglaltuk össze. Célunk a transanalis
minimálisan invazív műtéti technika hazai szakmai gyakorlatának egységes
szemléletű összefogása (szinopszis), valamint egy közös, hazai transanalis
műtéti audit (minőségellenőrzési) rendszer alapjainak a megteremtése.
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.