Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Compliance in Turkey: Data from the Prospective, Observational, Multicenter Survey Including 7,978 Surgical Patients.

Background: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is the peri-operative administration of antimicrobial agents. Compliance rates vary worldwide from 15% to 84.3%, with studies in Turkey not exceeding 35%. The aim of this multicenter study was to determine the rate of appropriate antibiotic class, timing, and duration as well as discharge prescriptions in Turkey. Thus, we aimed to determine the rate of full compliance with SAP procedures in our country Patients and Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational, descriptive study was conducted in 47 hospitals from 28 provinces in seven different regions of Turkey. Patients over 18 years of age in all surgical units between June 6, 2022, and June 10, 2022, were included in the study. Results: Of the 7,978 patients included in the study, 332 were excluded from further analyses because of pre-existing infection, and SAP compliance analyses were performed on the remaining 7,646 cases. The antibiotic most commonly used for SAP was cefazolin (n = 4,701; 61.5%), followed by third-generation cephalosporins (n = 596; 7.8%). The most common time to start SAP was within 30 minutes before surgery (n = 2,252; 32.5%), followed by 30 to 60 minutes before surgery (n = 1,638; 23.6%). Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis duration was <24 hours in 3,516 (50.7%) patients and prolonged until discharge in 1,505 (21.7%) patients. Finally, the actual proportion of patients compliant with SAP was 19% (n = 1,452) after omitting 4,458 (58.3%) patients who were prescribed oral antibiotic agents at discharge as part of a prolonged SAP. Conclusions: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis compliance rates are still very low in Turkey. Prolonged duration of SAP and especially high rate of antibiotic prescription at discharge are the main reasons for non-compliance with SAP.

Impact of central venous port implantation method and access choice on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing, there is still no "gold standard" for the implantation technique. AIM: To identify the implantation technique that should be favored. METHODS: Two hundred central venous port-implanted patients in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were assigned into two groups according to the access method. The first group comprised patients whose jugular veins were used, and the second group comprised patients whose subclavian veins were used. Groups were evaluated regarding age, sex, application side, primary diagnosis, active follow-up period in the hospital, chemotherapy agents administered, number of complications, and the Clavien-Dindo severity score. The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Mann-Whitney U test. The χ 2 test was used to analyze the variables. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, side, number of chemotherapy drugs, and duration of port usage (P > 0.05). Only 2 patients in group 1 had complications, whereas in group 2 we observed 19 patients with complications (P < 0.05). No port occlusion was found in group 1, but the catheters of 4 patients were occluded in group 2. One port was infected in group 1 compared to three infected ports in group 2. Two port ruptures, two pneumothorax, one revision due to a mechanical problem, one tachyarrhythmia during implantation, and four suture line problems were also recorded in group 2 patients. We also showed that it would be sufficient to evaluate and wash ports once every 2 mo. CONCLUSION: Our results robustly confirm that the jugular vein route is safer than the subclavian vein approach for central venous port implantation.

Our initial single port robotic cholecystectomy experience: A feasible and safe option for benign gallbladder diseases.

BACKGROUND: Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed for over 25 years, it is still not popular. The narrow working space used in this surgery limits the movement of instruments and causes ergonomic challenges. Robotic surgery not only resolves the ergonomic challenges of single-port laparoscopic surgery but is also considered a good option with its additional technical advantages, like a three-dimensional display and not being affected by tremors. However, the extent to which these technical and ergonomic advantages positively affect the surgical outcomes and how safe the single-port robotic surgeries need to be assessed for each particular surgery. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-port robotic cholecystectomy for patients with cholelithiasis. METHODS: The electronic records of the first 40 consecutive patients with gallbladder lithiasis who underwent single-port robotic cholecystectomy from 2013 to 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients, we analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores and body mass index. The presence of an accompanying umbilical hernia was also noted. The amount of blood loss during the operation, the necessity to place a drain in the subhepatic area, and the need to use grafts during the closure of the fascia of the port site were determined. Hospital stay, readmission rates, perioperative and postoperative complications, the Clavien-Dindo complication scores and postoperative analgesia requirements were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of the 40 patients included in the study was 49.5 ± 11.6 years, and 26 were female (65.0%). The umbilical hernia was present in 24 (60.0%) patients, with a body mass index median of 29.3 kg/m2 and a mean of 29.7 ± 5.2 kg/m2. Fifteen (37.5%) of the patients were evaluated as ASA I, 18 (45.0%) as ASA II, and 7 (17.5%) as ASA III. The mean bleeding amount during the operation was 58.4 ± 55.8 mL, and drain placement was required in 12 patients (30.0%). After port removal, graft reinforcement during fascia closure was preferred in 14 patients (35.0%). The median operation time was 93.5 min and the mean was 101.2 ± 27.0 min. The mean hospital stay was 1.4 ± 0.6 d, and 1 patient was readmitted to the hospital due to pain (2.5%). Clavien-Dindo I complications were seen in 14 patients (35.0%), and five (12.5%) complications were wound site problems. CONCLUSION: In addition to the technological and ergonomic advantages robotic surgery provides surgeons, our study strongly supports that single-port robotic cholecystectomy is a feasible and safe option for treating patients with gallstones.

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. RESULTS: Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.