Circular closure is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection following stoma reversal: a systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis.

AIM: Stoma reversal is frequently complicated by surgical site infection (SSI). To reduce SSI, several techniques for skin closure have been studied, with no agreement on which is best. The aim of this study was to identify the skin closure technique associated with the lowest rate of SSI following stoma reversal. METHOD: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed and OvidSP), Scopus and clinical registries from 1 January 1980 to 24 March 2012, and included original reports on adult patients following stoma reversal. A network of treatments was created to map the comparisons between skin closure techniques, including primary closure, primary closure with a drain, secondary closure, delayed primary closure, loose primary closure and circular closure. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed for all available direct comparisons of closure types and heterogeneity was assessed. A multiple-treatments meta-analysis was conducted to estimate relative treatment effects between competing closure types (reported as an odds ratio with 95% credible interval, and a probability that each treatment is best). Several sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified with a total of 2921 cases of stoma reversal. Overall, study quality was poor with observed low (one study), moderate (seven studies) and high (seven studies) risk of bias. Circular closure was associated with the lowest SSI risk (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.40) and was the best of six skin closure techniques (probability of being best = 68.9%). Circular closure remained the best after sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This study showed that circular closure is the best skin closure technique after stoma reversal in terms of SSI rate, but the quality of supporting evidence is limited, precluding definite conclusions.

Governance approval for multisite, non-interventional research: what can Harmonisation of Multi-Centre Ethical Review learn from the New South Wales experience?

BACKGROUND: In 2007, New South Wales Health mandated the separation of ethical and scientific review from research governance at all New South Wales public health sites based on their distinction in the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement. This separation allowed for single-site ethical review of multicentre studies. AIMS: To investigate the time taken for governance approval of multicentre studies through the site-specific approval (SSA) process. METHODS: A retrospective audit of the SSA process for five non-interventional studies proposed by a university cancer research unit. RESULTS: The median total governance approval time for all submissions (n= 28) was 12 weeks (range 2.5-64); median time from starting the SSA to submission was 8 weeks (range 1-48) and median time for governance approval was 5 weeks (range 0.3-40). Approval times were shorter for public compared to private institutions. Reasons for delays in finalising submissions for approval were the absence of institutional governance officers, lack of clarity regarding signatories, the need to identify a principal investigator employed by the institution, and lack of recognition of ethical approval by private institutions. The need to develop legal agreements between the university and hospital was the main reason for lengthy delays in obtaining approval. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of a harmonised single ethical review process were undermined by the coexistence of a fragmented, complex and lengthy governance approval process. This experience has implications for the success of the national Harmonisation of Multi-Centre Ethical Review (HoMER) model. A harmonised and fully supported national approach to research governance should be developed contemporaneously with HoMER.

Otitis externa: are we giving adequate care?

A series of 26 patients with diagnosis of otitis externa were given treatment consisting of either drops only or manual aural toilet followed by aural drops. The efficacy in terms of resolution of symptoms and clinical signs were compared. In all but the most minor of cases, adequate curative treatment had to consist of complete aural toilet as well as aural drops. It was also shown that without aural toilet and visualization of the tympanum, more serious middle ear pathology could be missed.This study indicates that unless the patient is given the opportunity to have his ears properly cleaned, the general practitioner may not only be giving inadequate and ineffective treatment, but he may also be missing serious ear disease.