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

Laparoscopic or Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Where are We Right Now?

Paradigms in rectal cancer surgery have shifted toward minimally invasive techniques in conjunction with the use of chemoradiation. Although laparoscopy is widely used for rectal tumors, debate continues as to whether it is capable of replacing open surgery. Robotic surgery has become a well-known technique that addresses the restrictions of the rigid laparoscopic instruments, but it is also associated with higher costs and longer operative time. Therefore, as the surgical community strives to benefit from minimally invasive surgery, there is still no consensus regarding which method, laparoscopic or robotic, should be offered to the patients. The more widespread use of robotic systems in rectal cancer surgery primarily depends on competitive pricing and increased experience, along with the adaptation to transanal techniques

The diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-only scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of COVID-19: A single-center study of 434 patients

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion (Q)-only studies in the absence of ventilation images. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Q-only imaging in the pandemic era. METHODS: Patients who underwent Q-only imaging for pulmonary embolism between March 2020 and February 2021 were analyzed. Patients who underwent lung quantification analysis were excluded. Q-only test results were reported as per modified PIOPED II criteria and single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging was performed as needed. Patients were considered concordant or discordant by correlating the Q-only results with CT angiogram (CTA) or clinical diagnosis made through chart review. The diagnostic accuracy was calculated after excluding intermediate probability and nondiagnostic studies. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were identified. One hundred and twenty-eight patients (29.4%) underwent ultrasound Doppler, 37 patients (8.5%) underwent CTA, and 16 patients (3.6%) underwent both. After excluding patients with intermediate probability or nondiagnostic studies and who did not have follow-up (a total of 87 patients [20%]), 347 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The combined planar and SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% (72.2%–93.9% confidence interval [CI]) and 98.7% (96.9%–98.6% CI), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Q-only imaging was 89.1% (77.3%–95.1% CI) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2% (96.4%–99% CI). The sensitivity with SPECT/CT reached 100% (CI: 71.5%–100%) with a specificity of 92.3% (CI: 64%–99.8%). The PPV was 85.7% (CI: 62.1%–95.6%) and the NPV was 100%. CONCLUSION: Q-only imaging provides clinically acceptable results. The sensitivity of the Q-only scan is increased when coupled with SPECT/CT

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study.

Background In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients. Methods We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups. Results There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 +/- 0.5 vs. 1 +/- 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90). Conclusion Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer