Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study

Background: Surgical 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. Methods: This 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. Findings: Between 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). Interpretation: Countries 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

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies

Background: The outcomes of minimally invasive liver surgery for posterosuperior segments (PS) are still debated. Since the results of ongoing trials focusing on the results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) in this setting are still awaited, the best evidence currently comes from retrospective propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes of RLR for difficult located lesions and to provide evidence for its use in clinical practice. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LLR and RLR for PS segments. The Medline, Embase and Web of Science Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to June 2024. Results: Five studies with a total of 2907 patients (RLR: n = 1084; LLR: n = 1823) were included in the meta-analysis. The RLR group had less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: − 88.3, 95% CI − 144.2–− 32.3; p = 0.012), fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39–0.80, p = 0.033), and a shorter operative time (MD − 27.3, 95% CI − 49.4–− 5.1; p = 0.027). No differences in postoperative morbidity, mortality and R1 resection rates were observed. Conclusion: RLR for lesions in the PS segments are safe and effective, and may have superior surgical outcomes than LLR

Postoperative Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection of Caudate Lobe: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Resection of the caudate lobe of the liver is considered a highly challenging surgical procedure due to the deep anatomic location of this segment and the relationships with major vessels. There is no clear evidence about the safety and effectiveness of robotic resection of the caudate lobe. The aim of this systematic review was to report data about the safety, technical feasibility, and postoperative outcomes of robotic caudate lobectomy. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases was undertaken, including studies published until 19 December 2024. Results: A total of 5 studies including 110 patients were selected. Of these surgeries, 56.3% were performed for malignant tumors. Tumor size varied significantly between 0.9 and 7.7 cm in the largest diameter. The mean operative time was 184.5 min (range 70–522 min), and the estimated blood loss was 95.5 mL (range 10–1500 mL). The median hospital length of stay was 4.2 days (range 2–19 days) and no cases of conversion to open were reported. All the patients underwent R0 resection. In total, 24 out of 110 patients (21.8%) developed postoperative complications, with 1.8% of all patients developing a major complication (Clavien–Dindo classification ≥ III). No perioperative deaths were reported by the included studies. Conclusions: Few retrospective studies investigating the outcomes of robotic resection of the caudate lobe are currently available in the literature. From published data, it may be a safe and feasible alternative to open and laparoscopic caudate lobectomy in selected patients in referral HPB centers. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm such preliminary findings

Laparoscopic Versus Open Caudate Lobe Resection: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background: Liver resection of a caudate lobe is a challenging procedure in both open and minimally invasive approaches. The reason is mainly related to its anatomical position: segment 1 (S1) lies on the inferior vein cava, behind the main and the left portal veins, and below the hepatic veins. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for S1 resection. Methods: Available literature up to June 2024 was retrieved from the Medline and Embase databases. A systematic review with a meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and efficacy of LLR for the S1 segment. Results: Six studies including 292 patients (LLR: n = 132; OLR: n = 160) were selected for the meta-analysis. The OLR cohort showed higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: 140.1, 95% CI 49.3&ndash;130.8; p = 0.011) and longer length of hospital stay (MD: 3, 95% CI 1.8&ndash;4.2; p = 0.001). No differences in severe postoperative morbidity, overall morbidity, R1 resection rates, transfusion rates, operative time, and duration of Pringle maneuvers were shown. Conclusion: LLR for lesions located in S1 is safe and effective and may be associated with lower EBL and shorter length of stay than OLR. Further larger prospective studies are needed to confirm such results