Observational study to estimate the proportion of surgical site infection following excision of ulcerated skin tumours (OASIS study).

BACKGROUND: Ulceration is a recognized risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI); however, the proportion of patients developing SSI after excision of an ulcerated skin cancer is unknown. AIM: To determine the proportion of participants with SSI after surgical excision of an ulcerated skin cancer. A secondary aim was to assess feasibility outcomes to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial to investigate the benefits and harms of perioperative antibiotics following excision of ulcerated tumours. METHODS: This was a multicentre, prospective, observational study of patients undergoing excision of an ulcerated skin cancer between March 2019 and March 2020. Prior to surgical excision, surface swabs of the ulcerated tumours of participants recruited from one centre were undertaken to determine organism growth. At 4 weeks after surgery, all participants were e-mailed or posted the Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) to determine whether they had developed SSI. RESULTS: In total, 148 participants were recruited 105 (70.9%) males; mean ± SD age 77.1 ± 12.3 years. Primary outcome data were available for 116 (78.4%) participants, of whom 35 (30.2%) were identified as having an SSI using the WHQ with a cutoff score of 8, and 47 (40.5%) were identified with a cutoff score of 6. Using the modified WHQ in participants with wounds left to heal by secondary intention, 33 (28.4%) and 43 (37.1%) were identified to have SSI respectively. CONCLUSION: This prospective evaluation of SSI identified with the WHQ following excision of ulcerated skin cancers demonstrated a high proportion with SSI. The WHQ was acceptable to patients; however, further evaluation is required to ensure validity in assessing skin wounds.

Dermatological surgery: an update on suture materials and techniques. Part 2.

This is the second part of a two-part series summarizing the latest evidence related to suture materials and wound closure techniques in dermatological surgery. We critically appraised evidence focusing on the following consequences of suture choice: scar/cosmesis, pain, patient satisfaction, cost, infection and wound complications. We searched the databases MEDLINE, PubMed and Embase using the keywords 'skin surgery', 'dermatological surgery', 'sutures', 'braided sutures', 'monofilament sutures' and 'antibacterial sutures' to identify relevant English-language articles. This part of the review assesses the evidence for different types of buried sutures, including braided vs. monofilament sutures, longer-absorbing sutures and antibacterial sutures. The majority of trials were noted to be of poor quality, single-centre (thus lacking external validity) and underpowered, which presents challenges in comparing suture techniques in skin surgery. Future large-scale, multicentre, randomized trials are needed, with both surgeon and patient-assessed validated outcomes.

Dermatological surgery: an update on suture materials and techniques. Part 1.

Significant variation exists in the surgical suture materials and techniques used for dermatological surgery. Many wound-closure techniques are now practised, including use of sutures, staples and topical adhesives. The focus of our review article is to summarize the latest evidence relating to suture materials and wound-closure techniques, considering the following areas: scar/cosmesis, pain, patient satisfaction, cost, infection and wound complications. We searched the databases Medline, PubMed and Embase using the keywords 'skin surgery', 'dermatologic surgery', 'sutures', 'suture techniques', 'suturing techniques' and 'surgical techniques' to identify relevant English-language articles. Absorbable superficial sutures may be a preferred alternative to nonabsorbable sutures by both patients and surgeons. Subcuticular sutures may be preferable to simple interrupted sutures for superficial wound closure, and there may also be a role for skin staples in dermatological surgery, particularly on the scalp. However, there remains limited evidence specific to dermatological surgery supporting the use of particular suture materials and suturing techniques. Further high-quality research is required, including multicentre randomized trials with larger cohorts.

National survey of UK Dermatologists demonstrates significant variation in how to obtain consent for dermatological procedures.

Consent must be undertaken prior to any dermatological procedure; however, in doing this, the clinician needs to ensure consent is valid and satisfies the principles of determining material risk. We aimed to assess variations in obtaining consent in the UK and understanding of material risk through a nationally distributed survey to members of the British Society for Dermatological Surgery and British Association of Dermatologists. Of 165 responses, we found that written consent was being obtained for all procedures in 73.9% of cases and typically at the time of procedure in the operating room/theatre (78.8%). Fifty-seven per cent of respondents were not familiar with the term 'material risk' and almost one-third were not aware of the Montgomery vs. Lanarkshire ruling, which replaced the Bolam test in 2015. We would encourage readers to be aware of these changes to consent law in the UK and how it might affect their approach to obtaining consent.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2017. Part 1: treatment and prevention.

This review forms part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). It provides a summary of key findings from 25 systematic reviews that were published or indexed during 2017, and focuses on the treatment and prevention of AE. There is high-quality evidence to demonstrate that dupilumab is better than placebo for the treatment of AE, is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects and does not increase the risk of infection compared with placebo; however, comparison studies with other systemic treatments are necessary. Topical tofacitinib is a promising treatment for mild-moderate AE, but currently lacks sufficient evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing with other active treatments. Topical doxepin may be effective for pruritus in AE, but available studies have short follow-up periods and longer-term outcomes are needed. Bleach baths were no more effective than water baths alone at reducing AE severity. Topical antibiotics cannot be recommended for infected AE, owing to insufficient evidence of benefit. There is little comparison of different emollients in RCTs, but overall evidence indicates that they reduce AE severity, are steroid-sparing and lead to better outcomes in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) than TCS alone. No clear benefit was demonstrated for vitamin D/C/E supplementation in pregnancy for eczema prevention.

Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a critical appraisal.

AIM: Blauvelt et al. aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of dupilumab with medium-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) vs. placebo with TCS in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). SETTING AND DESIGN: This multicentre randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in hospitals, clinics and academic institutions across 161 sites in 14 countries. STUDY EXPOSURE: Adults with moderate-to-severe AD were randomly assigned (3: 1: 3) to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once weekly plus TCS, dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks plus TCS or placebo plus TCS until week 52. OUTCOMES: Co-primary efficacy end points were percentage of patients achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and 2 points or higher improvement from baseline, and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75% improvement from baseline (EASI-75) at week 16. RESULTS: In total, 740 patients were included in the trial: 319 were randomly assigned to dupilumab once weekly, 106 to dupilumab every 2 weeks and 315 to the placebo arm. At week 16, more patients in the dupilumab groups achieved the co-primary end points: IGA 0/1 [39% (n = 125) once-weekly dosing, 39% (n = 41) every 2 weeks dosing vs. 12% (n = 39) receiving placebo; P < 0·0001] and EASI-75 [64% (n = 204) and 69% (n = 73) vs. 23% (n = 73); P < 0·0001]. While no new safety signals were identified, adverse effects were noted in 261 (83%) of those receiving dupilumab once weekly plus TCS, 97 (88%) receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks plus TCS and 266 (84%) for those receiving placebo plus TCS. Rates of conjunctivitis, injection site reactions and local herpes simplex infections were higher in the dupilumab groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Blauvelt et al. concluded that dupilumab treatment added to TCS improved AD up to week 52 vs. TCS alone, and also demonstrated acceptable safety.

Do perioperative antibiotics reduce the risk of surgical-site infections following excision of ulcerated skin cancers? A Critically Appraised Topic.

AIM: To review the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the risk of surgical-site infections (SSIs) following excision of ulcerated skin cancers. SETTING AND DESIGN: Study selection, data extraction and analysis were carried out independently by four authors. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the English language were included. INCLUDED STUDIES: RCTs in the English language in which patients received perioperative topical, intralesional or oral antibiotics for dermatological surgery, including Mohs micrographic surgery in general practice, dermatology or plastic surgery departments, were included. OUTCOME: The proportion of participants developing SSI following excision of skin lesions. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were identified from our literature search of PubMed and Embase, which evaluated SSI following use of topical (n = 5), oral (n = 3), intramuscular (n = 2), intravenous (n = 1) and intralesional antibiotics (n = 2) in dermatological surgery. Two RCTs specifically investigated SSIs in ulcerated skin cancer excisions; one RCT investigated the SSI rate following surgical treatment specifically for ulcerated skin cancers in individuals randomized to topical antibiotics vs. oral cephalexin; and one RCT compared intravenous cefazolin with no antibiotic, demonstrating significant reduction in SSI rates for ulcerated tumours (P = 0·04). CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the RCTs included in this study makes it difficult to make a direct comparison of the outcomes measured. High-quality evidence demonstrating a beneficial effect of the use of perioperative antibiotics to prevent SSI following excision of ulcerated skin cancers is lacking. In the absence of an evidence base, we propose that a well-designed multicentre RCT could evaluate the effect of perioperative antibiotics following excision of ulcerated tumours, and potentially reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescription.