Definitions for Loss of Domain: An International Delphi Consensus of Expert Surgeons

BACKGROUND: No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for 'loss of domain' (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. METHODS: A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. RESULTS: Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities

Complicated skin, skin structure and soft tissue infections - are we threatened by multi-resistant pathogens?

Tissue infections or skin, skin structure, and deep seated soft tissue infections are general terms for infections of the entire skin layer including the subcutaneous and muscle tissue layers and their respective fascia structures. Infections of the different mediastinal fascias (mediastinitis) and retroperitoneal fascia infections also belong to this category. Due to the variability of their clinical presentation, skin and soft tissue infections can be classified according to different features. The following aspects can be used for classification

A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, double blind pilot-study to evaluate safety and efficacy of the non-absorbable Optilene® Mesh Elastic versus the partly absorbable Ultrapro® Mesh for incisional hernia repair

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Randomised controlled trials with a long term follow-up (3 to 10 years) have demonstrated that mesh repair is superior to suture closure of incisional hernia with lower recurrence rates (5 to 20% versus 20 to 63%). Yet, the ideal size and material of the mesh are not defined. So far, there are few prospective studies that evaluate the influence of the mesh texture on patient's satisfaction, recurrence and complication rate. The aim of this study is to evaluate, if a non-absorbable mesh (Optilene^®Mesh Elastic) will result in better health outcomes compared to a partly absorbable mesh (Ultrapro^®Mesh).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this prospective, randomised, double blind study, eighty patients with incisional hernia after a midline laparotomy will be included. Primary objective of this study is to investigate differences in the physical functioning score from the SF-36 questionnaire 21 days after mesh insertion. Secondary objectives include the evaluation of the patients' daily activity, pain, wound complication and other surgical complications (hematomas, seromas), and safety within six months after intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study investigates mainly from the patient perspective differences between meshes for treatment of incisional hernias. Whether partly absorbable meshes improve quality of life better than non-absorbable meshes is unclear and therefore, this trial will generate further evidence for a better treatment of patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00646334</p

Treatment of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections caused by resistant bacteria: value of linezolid, tigecycline, daptomycin and vancomycin

Antibiotic-resistant organisms causing both hospital-and community-acquired complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTI) are increasingly reported. A substantial medical and economical burden associated with MRSA colonisation or infection has been documented. The number of currently available appropriate antimicrobial agents is limited. Good quality randomised, controlled clinical trial data on antibiotic efficacy and safety is available for cSSTI caused by MRSA. Linezolid, tigecycline, daptomycin and vancomycin showed efficacy and safety in MRSA-caused cSSTI. None of these drugs showed significant superiority in terms of clinical cure and eradication rates. To date, linezolid offers by far the greatest number of patients included in controlled trials with a strong tendency of superiority over vancomycin in terms of eradication and clinical success

Training of a Surgeon: An International Perspective

link_to_subscribed_fulltex