Does intra-operative humidification with warmed CO2 reduce surgical site infection in open colorectal surgery? A randomized control trial.

BACKGROUNDS: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a significant cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality, contributing to a considerable financial burden on the healthcare system. Insufflation of the open surgical wound with warm, humidified carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is a novel measure aimed to reduce SSI. The local atmosphere of warm, humidified CO2 within the open surgical wound is proposed to decrease airborne contamination, bacterial growth, desiccation, and heat loss while improving tissue oxygenation and perfusion. This randomized controlled trial evaluates the impact of the HumiGard™ surgical humidification system on the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing open colorectal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multi-site single-blinded randomized control trial on patients undergoing elective or emergency laparotomy at a single tertiary Colorectal Surgery service. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of SSI, with secondary outcomes including ICU length of stay (LOS), total LOS and mean core temperature. RESULTS: Patients who received HumiGard™ had a lower incidence of SSI, although this did not reach statistical significance (4.5% for treatment group versus 13.0% for control group; P = 0.092). There was no significant difference in ICU LOS or total LOS between cohorts. The HumiGard™ group had a higher mean core temperature than the control at the end of surgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study could not confirm that utilization of warm, humidified CO2 with HumiGard™ reduces SSI in open colorectal surgery. Further research is indicated to validate and extend these findings.

Ileocolic anastomosis after right hemicolectomy: stapled end-to-side, stapled side-to-side, or handsewn?

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) following ileocolic anastomosis is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Stapled end-to-side (ESA), stapled side-to-side (SSA), and handsewn anastomoses (HSA) are commonly performed techniques. There is however conflicting data on the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ESA against SSA and HSA. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal unit. All patients who underwent an ileocolic anastomosis from October 2008 to May 2020 were included. Exclusion criteria were missing data on anastomotic technique or clinicopathological variables. Primary outcomes were AL and anastomotic bleeding (AB). Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LoS) and return of gut function. RESULTS: A total of 1390 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 976 (70%) ESA, 308 (22%) SSA, and 108 (8%) HSA were performed. AL occurred in 17/1390 (1.2%) patients, and 54/1390 (3.9%) had AB. On adjusted analysis, ESA experienced a lower AL when compared with SSA (OR 4.93, p = 0.005), with a trend towards a lower AL when compared to HSA (OR 2.6, p = 0.27). There was no difference in AB between all techniques: ESA vs. SSA (OR 1.07 p = 0.84), and ESA vs. HSA (OR 0.24 p = 0.76). Both stapled techniques were associated with a shorter return to gut function compared to HSA; 3.3 vs. 4.2 days (p < 0.001). There was no difference in LoS. CONCLUSION: ESA has the lowest leak rate when compared to other anastomotic techniques without any increased risk of anastomotic bleeding.