Effect of a single prophylactic preoperative oral antibiotic dose on surgical site infection following complex dermatological procedures on the nose and ear: a prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded trial.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited published research studying the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection (SSI) in dermatological surgery, and there is no consensus for its use in higher-risk cases. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a single oral preoperative 2 g dose of cephalexin in preventing SSI following flap and graft dermatological closures on the nose and ear. DESIGN: Prospective double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial testing for difference in infection rates. SETTING: Primary care skin cancer clinics in North Queensland, Australia, were randomised to 2 g oral cephalexin or placebo 40-60 min prior to skin incision. PARTICIPANTS: 154 consecutive eligible patients booked for flap or graft closure following skin cancer excision on the ear and nose. INTERVENTION: 2 g dose of cephalexin administered 40-60 min prior to surgery. RESULTS: Overall 8/69 (11.6%) controls and 1/73 (1.4%) in the intervention group developed SSI (p=0.015; absolute SSI reduction 10.2%; number needed to treat (NNT) for benefit 9.8, 95% CI 5.5 to 45.5). In males, 7/44 controls and 0/33 in the intervention group developed SSI (p=0.018; absolute SSI reduction 15.9%; NNT for benefit 6.3, 95% CI 3.8 to 19.2). SSI was much lower in female controls (1/25) and antibiotic prophylaxis did not further reduce this (p=1.0). There was no difference between the study groups in adverse symptoms attributable to high-dose antibiotic administration (p=0.871). CONCLUSION: A single oral 2 g dose of cephalexin given before complex skin closure on the nose and ear reduced SSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR 365115; Post-results.

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.

Comparing non-sterile to sterile gloves for minor surgery: a prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of infection after minor surgery conducted using non-sterile clean boxed gloves with surgery conducted using sterile gloves. DESIGN: Prospective randomised controlled single-centre trial testing for non-inferiority in infection rates. SETTING: Primary care regional centre, Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients presenting to participating general practitioners for a minor skin excision, between 30 June 2012 and 28 March 2013, were eligible to participate. INTERVENTION: The use of non-sterile clean boxed gloves was compared with normal treatment using sterile gloves in the control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound infection, assessed at the time of removal of sutures, and other adverse events. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-three consecutive patients presenting for minor skin excisions were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups: non-sterile clean boxed gloves (n = 250) or sterile gloves (n = 243). Four hundred and seventy-eight patients contributed data for analysis (241 non-sterile, 237 sterile gloves). The incidence of infection in the non-sterile gloves group (8.7%; 95% CI, 4.9%-12.6%) was significantly non-inferior compared with the incidence in the control group (9.3%; 95% CI, 7.4%-11.1%). The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in infection rate (- 0.6%) was - 4.0% to 2.9%, and did not reach the predetermined margin of 7% which had been assumed as the non-inferiority limit. RESULTS of the intention-to-treat analysis were confirmed by per-protocol and sensitivity analyses. There were no important adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in regard to wound infection, non-sterile clean boxed gloves are not inferior to sterile gloves for minor skin excisions in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000698875.

Satisfaction with rural rheumatology telemedicine service.

AIM: To assess patient satisfaction with the rheumatology telemedicine service provided to a rural town in northern Australia. METHODS: A prospective, questionnaire-based exploratory study of patients seen at the Mount Isa (rural town) rheumatology telemedicine clinics during 2012 was undertaken. Control groups included patients travelling over 3 h to be seen face-to-face in Townsville (tertiary referral centre), and patients seen at the infrequent face-to-face clinic in Mount Isa. A 5-point Likert scale was used to explore themes of communication, confidentiality, physical examination, rapport, medication safety and access. RESULTS: This study evaluated 107 rheumatology outpatients (49 telemedicine, 46 face-to-face Townsville, 12 face-to-face Mount Isa). Patients seen in Mount Isa travelled a median of < 10 km for either the telemedicine or local face-to-face appointments. The patients attending the Townsville face-to-face clinic travelled a median of 354 km. New patients comprised 14% of consultations. Satisfaction with themes related to quality-of-care was high with over 90% selecting 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to these questions. Comparing models of care, there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of those selecting 'strongly agree' across questions, apart from a single question related to rapport which favored the Mount Isa face-to-face model (P = 0.018). When asked whether they would rather travel to Townsville than participate in a telemedicine consultation, 63% of patients selected 'disagree' (17%) or 'strongly disagree' (46%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients are satisfied with a rheumatology telemedicine service, and may prefer this to extensive travelling. Evaluation in other settings is recommended before generalizing this finding.

Prevention of surgical site infection in lower limb skin lesion excisions with single dose oral antibiotic prophylaxis: a prospective randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a single perioperative prophylactic 2 g dose of cephalexin in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) following excision of skin lesions from the lower limb. DESIGN: Prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled trial testing for difference in infection rates. SETTING: Primary care in regional North Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 52 patients undergoing lower limb skin lesion excision. INTERVENTIONS: 2 g dose of cephalexin 30-60 min before excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of SSI. RESULTS: Incidence of SSI was 12.5% (95% CI 2.7% to 32.4%) in the cephalexin group compared with 35.7% (95% CI 18.6% to 55.9%) in the placebo group (p=0.064). This represented an absolute reduction of 23.21% (95% CI -0.39% to 46.82%), relative reduction of 65.00% (95% CI -12.70% to 89.13%) and number-needed-to-treat of 4.3. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a single 2 g dose of cephalexin 30-60 min before skin lesion excision from the lower limb may produce a reduction in the incidence of infection; however, this study was underpowered to statistically determine this. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000595910.

A meta-analysis of the outcome of endovascular and noninvasive therapies in the treatment of intermittent claudication.

PURPOSE: Intermittent claudication is a common symptom of peripheral arterial disease. Currently, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective therapies for this problem. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy (EVT) compared with noninvasive therapies for the treatment of intermittent claudication. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing the efficacy of EVT and noninvasive therapies, such as medical therapy (MT) and supervised exercise (SVE) in patients with intermittent claudication were identified by a systematic search. Data were pooled, and combined overall effect sizes (standardized differences of mean values) were calculated for a random effect model in terms of ankle-brachial index (ABI) and treadmill walking for initial claudication distance (ICD) and maximum walking distance (MWD). Nine eligible trials (873 participants) were included: two compared EVT and MT alone, four compared EVT and SVE, and three trials compared EVT plus SVE vs SVE alone. RESULTS: Heterogeneity between studies was marked. Quantitative data analysis suggested that EVT improved outcomes over MT alone at early follow-up evaluations. Outcomes of EVT plus SVE were better than those of SVE alone in terms of both ABI and treadmill walking at immediate, early, and intermediate follow-up. No substantial differences in outcomes of EVT alone compared with SVE alone were found. CONCLUSION: In patients with intermittent claudication, current evidence supports improved ABI and treadmill walking when EVT is added to MT or SVE during early and intermediate follow-up. There is no evidence that EVT alone provides improved outcome over SVE alone. There is low confidence in these findings for a number of reasons, including the small number of trials, the small size of these studies, the heterogeneity in study design, and the limited use of quality of life tools in assessing outcomes. More consistent data from larger, more homogenous studies, including longer follow-up, are required.

A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing drug-eluting stents and vascular brachytherapy in the treatment of coronary artery in-stent restenosis.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised trials assessing the outcome of vascular brachytherapy (VBT) or DES for the treatment of coronary artery ISR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies utilising DES or VBT for ISR were identified by a systematic search. Data was pooled and combined overall effect measures were calculated for a random effect model in terms of deaths, myocardial infarctions, revascularisation, binary restenosis, mean late luminal loss and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Fourteen eligible studies (3103 patients) were included. Neither therapy had any effect on mortality or myocardial infarction rate. VBT reduced the rate of revascularisation (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.50-0.68), MACE (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.51-0.67), binary restenosis (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.44-0.59) and late loss (-0.73 mm, 95%CI -0.91 to -0.55 mm) compared to balloon angioplasty and selective bare metal stents (BMS) alone at intermediate follow-up and MACE (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.61-0.85) at long-term follow-up. DES reduced the rate of revascularisation (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.71), MACE (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.79) and binary restenosis (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.81) compared to VBT but follow-up was limited to 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: VBT improves the long-term outcome of angioplasty compared with BMS alone in the treatment of ISR. DES appears to provide similar results to that of VBT during short-term follow-up.

Nonpigmented skin lesions - how many are nonmelanoma skin cancer?

BACKGROUND: Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer in Australia and thus the most costly to treat. Despite the high prevalence of NMSC, little is known about the rate of malignancy in excised or biopsied nonpigmented lesions. METHOD: An audit of 912 reports relating to nonpigmented skin samples from 749 patients processed during January 2005 in Tasmania. RESULTS: Nonmelanoma skin cancer was present in 60.6% of samples from specialists and 44.5% from nonspecialists/primary care doctors (p<0.001); 1.6 skin lesions were excised or biopsied in order to identify one malignant or pre-invasive lesion (1.3 for specialists and 1.7 for nonspecialists). The number of NMSCs increased with age and were more common in men. DISCUSSION: Medical practitioners are efficient in their management of nonpigmented skin lesions in both primary and secondary care.