ALEXIS O-Ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections(1)

Energy vessel sealing systems versus mechanical ligature of the inferior mesenteric artery in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy

PURPOSE

With the development of new devices, our ligation technique of the inferior mesenteric artery changed from mechanical ligature (ML) to energized vessel sealing systems (EVSS) ligature. The aim of this study was to determine if EVSS could be considered as safe and effective as the more convention ML of the inferior mesenteric vessels division during elective laparoscopic left colectomy.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2014, 200 consecutive patients (111 males) of mean age 54.1 years were operated laparoscopically for a symptomatic sigmoid diverticulitis. Vascular interruptions were performed using mechanical ligatures including double clipping, staples or surgical thread (100 patients) or, starting from 2006, with EVSS thereafter (100 patients). Section of the inferior mesenteric artery is performed systematically at its origin in our institution for teaching purposes. Technical results were prospectively collected perioperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was no mortality. Mean operating time was 253.7 and 200.7 min in the ML and EVSS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean hospital stay was 10.4 and 8.1 days (p < 0.001). Thirty-day complications occurred in 31 versus 25 % of patients (p = 0.26). Leakage with peritonitis occurred in 3 patients in the ML group. Hemorrhagic events occurred in both groups (2 in ML group versus 1 in EVSS group). Limitations of the study are its retrospective design and the bias due to the comparison of two historical cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

EVSS for the inferior mesenteric artery are as safe and effective as ML in elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease with lower operative time and hospital stay.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgical Procedures

Laparoscopic-assisted procedures allow a balance between the improved patient recoveries often associated with smaller incisions and the need for appropriate visualization of visceral organs/identification of lesions. The organ systems of small animal veterinary patients that are highly amenable to laparoscopic-assisted procedures include the urinary bladder, the gastrointestinal tract, and the reproductive tracts. Laparoscopic-assisted procedures are especially beneficial in the approach to luminal organs, allowing the organ incision to be exteriorized through the body wall, protecting the peritoneal cavity from contamination from luminal contents. Procedure-specific morbidities and patient selection should be considered when choosing between assisted laparoscopic and open approaches.

Wound edge protectors in open abdominal surgery to reduce surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

Surgical site infections remain one of the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial costs, morbidity and mortality.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of wound edge protectors in open abdominal surgery in reducing surgical site infections.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature search was conducted according to a prespecified review protocol in a variety of data-bases combined with hand-searches for randomized controlled trials on wound edge protectors in patients undergoing laparotomy. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of included trials was conducted.

Findings

We identified 16 randomized controlled trials including 3695 patients investigating wound edge protectors published between 1972 and 2014. Critical appraisal uncovered a number of methodological flaws, predominantly in the older trials. Wound edge protectors significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.65; 95%CI, 0.51–0.83; p = 0.0007; I² = 52%). The results were robust in a number of sensitivity analyses. A similar effect size was found in the subgroup of patients undergoing colorectal surgery (risk ratio 0.65; 95%CI, 0.44–0.97; p = 0.04; I² = 56%). Of the two common types of wound protectors double ring devices were found to exhibit a greater protective effect (risk ratio 0.29; 95%CI, 0.15–0.55) than single-ring devices (risk ratio 0.71; 95%CI, 0.54–0.92), but this might largely be due to the lower quality of available data for double-ring devices. Exploratory subgroup analyses for the degree of contamination showed a larger protective effect in contaminated cases (0.44; 95%CI, 0.28–0.67; p = 0.0002, I² = 23%) than in clean-contaminated surgeries (0.72, 95%CI, 0.57–0.91; p = 0.005; I² = 46%) and a strong effect on the reduction of superficial surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.45; 95%CI, 0.24–0.82; p = 0.001; I² = 72%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Wound edge protectors significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infections in open abdominal surgery. Further trials are needed to explore their effectiveness in different risk constellations.

Pressurized pulse irrigation with saline reduces surgical-site infections following major hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are a significant cause of postoperative morbidity. Pressurized pulse irrigation of subcutaneous tissues may lower infection rates by aiding in the debridement of necrotic tissue and reducing bacterial counts compared to simply pouring saline into the wound.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing laparotomy extending beyond 2 h were randomized to treatment of wounds by pressurized pulse lavage irrigation (<15 psi) with 2 L normal saline (pulse irrigation group), or to standard irrigation with 2 L normal saline poured into the wound, immediately prior to skin closure (standard group). Only elective cases were included, and all cases were performed within a specialized hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery unit.

RESULTS

There were 62 patients managed by standard irrigation and 68 were managed by pulse irrigation. The groups were comparable in most aspects. Overall there were 16 (13 %) SSI. Significantly fewer SSI occurred in the pulse irrigation group [4 (6 %) vs. 12 (19 %); p = 0.032]. On multivariate analysis, the use of pulse irrigation was the only factor associated with a reduction in SSI with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 [95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 0.1-0.8; p = 0.031]. In contrast, hospital length of stay of greater than 14 days was associated with increased infections with an OR of 7.6 (95 % CI 2.4-24.9; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pulse irrigation of laparotomy wounds in operations exceeding 2 h duration reduced SSI after major hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12612000170820).

A novel technique for wound protector deployment and efficient specimen extraction following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Challenges of specimen extraction during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and other resectional laparoscopic procedures can often be proven to be time consuming and frustrating, and the risk of wound infection and port site tumor implantation increases. In this paper, we discuss our experience with an efficient approach to specimen extraction utilizing a novel technique for deployment of a very small self-expanding wound protector through a 12- or 15-mm port. We also report our observations with regard to the learning curve of this technique and the influence of BMI to retractor insertion times and specimen extraction times during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Efficacy of a dual-ring wound protector for prevention of incisional surgical site infection after Whipple's procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) with preoperatively-placed intrabiliary stents: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Among surgical oncology patients, incisional surgical site infection is associated with substantially increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Moreover, while adults undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with preoperative placement of an intrabiliary stent have a high risk of this type of infection, and wound protectors may significantly reduce its risk, no relevant studies of wound protectors yet exist involving this patient population. This study will evaluate the efficacy of a dual-ring wound protector for prevention of incisional surgical site infection among adults undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with preoperatively-placed intrabiliary stents.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be a parallel, dual-arm, randomised controlled trial that will utilise a more explanatory than pragmatic attitude. All adults (≥18 years) undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy at the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with preoperative placement of an intrabiliary stent will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria will include patient age <18 years and those receiving long-term glucocorticoids. The trial will employ block randomisation to allocate patients to a commercial dual-ring wound protector (the Alexis Wound Protector) or no wound protector and the current standard of care. The main outcome measure will be the rate of surgical site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria within 30 days of the index operation date as determined by a research assistant blinded to treatment allocation. Outcomes will be analysed by a statistician blinded to allocation status by calculating risk ratios and 95% CIs and compared using Fisher's exact test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This will be the first randomised trial to evaluate the efficacy of a dual-ring wound protector for prevention of incisional surgical site infection among patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Results of this study are expected to be available in 2016/2017 and will be disseminated using an integrated and end-of-grant knowledge translation strategy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01836237.

Current and future practices in surgical retraction

Retraction of tissues and anatomical structures is an essential component of all forms of surgery. The means by which operative access is gained through retraction are many and diverse. In this article, the various forms of retraction methods currently available are reviewed, with special reference to hand held, self-retaining and compliant techniques. The special challenges posed by laparoscopic surgery are considered and future developments in new retraction techniques are anticipated.

Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness of wound edge protection devices in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery.

DESIGN

Multicentre observer blinded randomised controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing laparotomy at 21 UK hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard care or the use of a wound edge protection device during surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, assessed by blinded clinicians at seven and 30 days and by patient's self report for the intervening period. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, duration of stay in hospital, and the effect of characteristics of the patient and operation on the efficacy of the device.

RESULTS

760 patients were enrolled with 382 patients assigned to the device group and 378 to the control group. Six patients in the device group and five in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Fourteen patients, seven in each group, were lost to follow-up. A total of 184 patients experienced surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, 91/369 (24.7%) in the device group and 93/366 (25.4%) in the control group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.36; P=0.85). This lack of benefit was consistent across wound assessments performed by clinicians and those reported by patients and across all secondary outcomes. In the secondary analyses no subgroup could be identified in which there was evidence of clinical benefit associated with use of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

Wound edge protection devices do not reduce the rate of surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparotomy, and therefore their routine use for this role cannot be recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 40402832.