Prophylactic use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site occurrences in general surgery: Consensus document.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site occurrences pose a threat to patient health, potentially resulting in significant increases in health care spending caused by using additional resources. The objective of this study was to reach a consensus among a group of experts in incisional negative pressure wound therapy to determine the indications for using this type of treatment prophylactically and to analyze the associated risk factors of surgical site occurrences in abdominal surgery. METHODS: A group of experts in incisional negative pressure wound therapy from Spain and Portugal was formed among general surgery specialists who frequently perform colorectal, esophagogastric, or abdominal wall surgery. The Coordinating Committee performed a bibliographic search to identify the most relevant publications and to create a summary table to serve as a decision-making protocol regarding the use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy based on factors related to the patient and type of procedure. RESULTS: The patient risk factors associated with surgical site occurrence development such as age, immunosuppression, anticoagulation, hypoalbuminemia, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diabetes, obesity, and malnutrition were analyzed. For surgical procedure factors, surgical time, repeated surgeries, organ transplantation, need for blood transfusion, complex abdominal wall reconstruction, surgery at a contaminated site, open abdomen closure, emergency surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy were analyzed. CONCLUSION: In our experience, this consensus has been achieved on a tailored set of recommendations on patient and surgical aspects that should be considered to reduce the risk of surgical site occurrences with the use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy, particularly in areas where the evidence base is controversial or lacking.

Evaluation of the impact of preoperative education in ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective, double-blind randomized trial. / Valoración del impacto de la educación preoperatoria en la colecistectomía laparoscópica ambulatoria. Ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado doble ciego.

INTRODUCTION: Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure and provides a better use of health resources and perceived satisfaction without affecting quality of care. Preoperative education has shown less postoperative stress, pain and nausea in some interventions. The principal objective of this study is to assess the impact of preoperative education on postoperative pain in patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Secondary objectives were: to evaluate presence of nausea, morbidity, hospital admissions, readmissions rate, quality of life and satisfaction. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, and double blind study. Between April 2014 and May 2016, 62 patients underwent outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ASA I-II, age 18-75, outpatient surgery criteria, abdominal ultrasonography with cholelithiasis. Patient randomization in two groups, group A: intensified preoperative education and group B: control. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients included, 44 women (71%), 18 men (29%), mean age 46,8 years (20-69). Mean BMI 27,5. Outpatient rate 92%. Five cases required admission, two due to nausea. Pain scores obtained using a VAS was at 24-hour, 2,9 in group A and 2,7 in group B. There were no severe complications or readmissions. Results of satisfaction and quality of life scores were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find differences due to intensive preoperative education. However, we think that a correct information protocol should be integrated into the patient's preoperative preparation. Registered in ISRCTN number ISRCTN83787412.

Retracted: Impact on quality of life of using an onlay mesh to prevent incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using prophylactic meshes to achieve abdominal wall closure, decreasing the risk of incisional hernia. However, the effect of prophylactic mesh placement on a patient's quality of life has not yet been evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: A controlled, prospective, randomized, and blind study was carried out. The patients in group A (mesh) were fitted with a polypropylene mesh to reinforce the standard abdominal wall closure. The patients in group B (nonmesh) were given a standard abdominal wall closure and were not fitted with the mesh. All patients were administered the 36-Item Short-Form generic health questionnaire during their preoperation visit and during their 1-month, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up appointments. The scores of the questionnaires have been compared with those recorded when the questionnaire was administered before surgery. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier survival curves show that the likelihood of incisional hernia at 12 months is 1.5% in mesh group compared with 35.9% in nonmesh group (p > 0.0001), which means that the differences are statistically significant. Patients with mesh placement had greater improvement in general health and bodily pain than patients in nonmesh group at 1-month and 6-month post operation. One year after operation, patients in the mesh group had statistically significant better quality of life than patients in the nonmesh group in the physical functioning, general health perceptions, vitality, social role functioning, mental health, physical component summary and mental component summary dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Fitting a prophylactic supra-aponeurotic mesh prevents incisional hernia.