No abstract

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) require prompt diagnosis and treatment. Early identification of patients at greatest risk of limb amputation and death may help in targeting aggressive medical and surgical management. The aim of this study was to assess predictors of limb loss and mortality in patients with NSTI based on admission variables. We performed a retrospective review of two hospitals that care for a large volume of patients with NSTI. Univariate and multi-variable analyses were used to determine the association of admission biochemical markers to limb loss and mortality. Of 174 patients with NSTI, there were 19 deaths (10.9%) and 42 required amputations (24.1%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that only arterial lactate was predictive for both mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.0; P = 0.009) and limb loss (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.7; P = 0.02). In patients with a suspected NSTI, an arterial lactate should be ordered early on to guide aggressive therapeutic interventions and to provide information with regard to long-term outcomes of amputation and death that is needed for early discussion with the patient and family.

Background Robotic ventral hernia repair (VHR) has seen rapid adoption, but with limited data assessing clinical outcome or cost. This systematic review compared robotic VHR with laparoscopic and open approaches. Methods This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with terms relating to ‘robot-assisted’, ‘cost effectiveness’, and ‘ventral hernia’ or ‘incisional hernia’ from 1 January 2010 to 10 November 2020. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pain, recurrence, and cost data were extracted for narrative analysis. Results Of 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, three were RCTs and 22 observational studies. Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation than open and laparoscopic repairs, but with fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication rates than open repair. Robotic VHR was more expensive than laparoscopic repair, but not significantly different from open surgery in terms of cost. There were no significant differences in rates of intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery, surgical-site infection, readmission, mortality, pain, or recurrence between the three approaches. Conclusion Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation, fewer transfusions, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications compared with open surgery. Robotic VHR had higher costs and a longer operating time than laparoscopic repair. Randomized or matched data with standardized reporting, long-term outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analyses are still required to weigh the clinical benefits against the cost of robotic VHR.

No abstract