SummaryBackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world.MethodsThis international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231.FindingsBetween Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p<0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p<0·001).InterpretationCountries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication.FundingDFID-MRC-Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trial Development Grant,...

The integrity of the physis, articular surface and soft tissues are all equally important in treating these injuries.

In the trauma situation where the trauma team is faced with a severely injured limb, it requires judicious thinking and evaluating not only the injury in isolation but the patient as a whole when considering the management options. The aim must be to give the best quality of life and avoid repeated admissions to hospital for associated complications in the future. The decision to amputate or salvage a limb should be based on numerous factors, such as the patient's pre-injury status, injury factors (soft tissue injury, location, contamination and physiological status), patient's wish and available resources. The biggest challenge when faced with a complex limb injury is deciding what management route to take with a satisfactory outcome for the patient being the main goal. Many studies have been undertaken looking at the outcome of successful limb salvage versus primary amputation. Studies such as the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study have concluded that there was no difference of outcome at the two-year stage between the two strategies.

In the trauma situation where the trauma team is faced with a severely injured limb, it requires judicious thinking and evaluating not only the injury in isolation but the patient as a whole when considering the management options. The aim must be to give the best quality of life and avoid repeated admissions to hospital for associated complications in the future. The decision to amputate or salvage a limb should be based on numerous factors, such as the patient's preinjury status, injury factors (soft tissue injury, location, contamination and physiological status), patient's wish and available resources. The biggest challenge when faced with a complex limb injury is deciding what management route to take with a satisfactory outcome for the patient being the main goal. Many studies have been undertaken looking at the outcome of successful limb salvage versus primary amputation. Studies such as the Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) study have concluded that there was no difference of outcome at the two-year stage between the two strategies.

Introduction Personal protective equipment (PPE) may protect health-care workers from COVID-19 infection and limit nosocomial spread to vulnerable hip fracture patients. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey amongst orthopaedic trainees to explore PPE practice in 19 hospitals caring for hip fracture patients in the North West of England. Results During the second wave of the pandemic, 14/19 (74%) hospitals experienced an outbreak of COVID-19 amongst staff or patients on the orthopaedic wards. An FFP3 respirator mask was used by doctors in only 6/19 (32%) hospitals when seeing patients with COVID-19 and a cough and in 5/19 (26%) hospitals when seeing asymptomatic patients with COVID-19. A COVID-19 outbreak was reported in 11/13 (85%) orthopaedic units where staff wore fluid resistant surgical masks compared to 3/6 (50%) units using an FFP3 respirator mask (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.74-3.89) when caring for symptomatic patients with COVID-19. Similarly, a COVID-19 outbreak was reported in more orthopaedic units caring for asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 where staff wore fluid resistant surgical masks (12/14 (86%)) as compared to an FFP3 respirator mask (2/5 (40%)) (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.72-6.4). Conclusion Urgent re-evaluation of PPE use is required to reduce nosocomial spread of COVID-19, amongst highly vulnerable patients with hip fracture.