Please wait...


GlobalSurg Collaborative.BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Dec;5(12):e003429.

Introduction: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). However, there is a lack of data available about SSI in children worldwide, especially from low-income and middle-income countries. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of SSI in children and associations between SSI and morbidity across human development settings.

Methods: A multicentre, international, prospective, validated cohort study of children aged under 16 years undergoing clean-contaminated, contaminated or dirty gastrointestinal surgery. Any hospital in the world providing paediatric surgery was eligible to contribute data between January and July 2016. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI by 30 days. Relationships between explanatory variables and SSI were examined using multilevel logistic regression. Countries were stratified into high development, middle development and low development groups using the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI).

Results: Of 1159 children across 181 hospitals in 51 countries, 523 (45·1%) children were from high HDI, 397 (34·2%) from middle HDI and 239 (20·6%) from low HDI countries. The 30-day SSI rate was 6.3% (33/523) in high HDI, 12·8% (51/397) in middle HDI and 24·7% (59/239) in low HDI countries. SSI was associated with higher incidence of 30-day mortality, intervention, organ-space infection and other HAIs, with the highest rates seen in low HDI countries. Median length of stay in patients who had an SSI was longer (7.0 days), compared with 3.0 days in patients who did not have an SSI. Use of laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower SSI rates, even after accounting for HDI.

Conclusion: The odds of SSI in children is nearly four times greater in low HDI compared with high HDI countries. Policies to reduce SSI should be prioritised as part of the wider global agenda.



Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on the West Midlands Research Collaborative.
Br J Surg. 2021 Jan 27;108(1):66-73.

Background: The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks.

Methods: A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income.

Results: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis.

Conclusion: Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design.



ESCP Enhanced Recovery Collaborating Group. Colorectal Dis. 2021 Aug 8.

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS® ) Society guidelines aim to standardise perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.

Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019/20. For each ERAS® principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.

Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195 [83.6%]). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS® principles (18/25 [72%]). Variability in uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilisation) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS® guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia, and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.

Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS® principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS® implementation.



Ziati J, Souadka A, Benkabbou A, Boutayeb S, Ahmadi B, Amrani L, Mohsine R, Anass Majbar M.
Gulf J Oncolog. 2021 Jan;1(35):66-76

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new technique that is designed to overcome the limits encountered during laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer, especially in male, obese patients with a narrow pelvis and mid and low rectal tumours.

Aim: The objective of our meta-analysis is to evaluate short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer.

Methods: A meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed). All original studies published in English that compared TaTME with laTME were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle- Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results: Twelve studies including 835 TaTME patients and 1707 LaTME patients with rectal cancer met the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. No statistical significant differences were observed in regard to positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM), positive distal resection margin (PDRM), macroscopic quality of mesorectum (MQM) and harvested lymph nodes (HLN). Concerning the perioperative outcomes, the results of conversion rates, operative time, hospital stay (HS), anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis provides that TaTME may be a valid alternative approach for the treatment of rectal cancer in comparison with LaTME.


Copyright by Digital Zone 2018. All rights reserved.