Necrotising soft tissue infection in western Sydney: An 8-year experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the risk factors, management, imaging validity, Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising infection (LRINEC) score and outcomes of necrotising soft tissue infection (NSTI) at a western Sydney tertiary hospital. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients with NSTI from 2012 to 2019 at our institution. Patient characteristics, imaging, microbiology and site, LRINEC score, surgical management and outcomes/disposition were collected. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria with mean age of 52 years and body mass index of 38.1; 55.6% were male, 48% of Polynesian descent and 55.6% were diabetic. The most frequent sites of NSTI were perineal (30.6%), lower limb (30.6%), perianal (19.3%) and trunk (11.1%). A total of 64% of patients underwent computed tomography radiological imaging with diagnostic accuracy of 50%. The mean LRINEC score was 7 (1-20). A total of 52.8% were transferred from another facility or non-surgical teams which delayed surgical review by 11.4 h (P < 0.03) and operating time by 12.4 h (P < 0.04) compared with direct emergency department referrals to the on-call surgical team. There was no statistical difference in outcomes in both groups. The overall average time to surgical debridement was 16.2 h (standard deviation 19.6, range 3.4-105.1). The mean hospital length of stay was 20.9 days; 44.4% of patients were transferred for rehabilitation or plastic reconstruction with a single mortality from multi-organ failure. CONCLUSION: The optimal management of NSTI requires a high index of suspicion and LRINEC score is a useful adjunct in aiding a clinician's decision. Early surgical debridement within 24 h of diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach is associated with a lower mortality rate.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has become the routine treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and/or perforated) remains controversial due to concerns of an increased incidence of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) in LA compared to open appendicectomy (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for complicated appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-control studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for complicated appendicitis. RESULTS: Data from three RCT and 30 CCS on 6428 patients (OA 3,254, LA 3,174) were analysed. There was no significant difference in the rate of IAA (LA = 6.1% vs. OA = 4.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71-1.47, p = 0.91). LA for complicated appendicitis has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LA = 15.5% vs. OA = 22.7%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31-0.59, p < 0.0001), wound infection, (LA = 4.7% vs. OA = 12.8%; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.36, p < 0.001), respiratory complications (LA = 1.8% vs. OA = 6.4%; OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13-0.49, p < 0.001), post-operative ileus/small bowel obstruction (LA = 3.1% vs. OA = 3.6%; OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.0, p = 0.048) and mortality rate (LA = 0% vs. OA = 0.4%; OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.61, p = 0.008). LA has a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.02) and earlier resumption of solid food (2.7 days vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These results clearly demonstrate that LA for complicated appendicitis has the same incidence of IAA but a significantly reduced morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay compared with OA. The finding of complicated appendicitis at laparoscopy is not an indication for conversion to open surgery. LA should be the preferred treatment for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for adhesional small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) due to adhesions is a common acute surgical presentation. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is being performed more frequently. However, the clear benefits of laparoscopic adhesiolysis (LA) compared with traditional open adhesiolysis (OA) remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for SBO due to adhesions. METHODS: A systemic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-controlled studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for SBO. Data were extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed. RESULTS: There were no RCT. Data from 18 CCS on 38,927 patients (LA = 5,729 and OA = 33,389) were analysed. A meta-analysis showed that LA for SBO has decreased overall mortality (LA = 1.6% vs. OA = 4.9%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (LA = 11.2% vs. OA = 30.9%, p < 0.001). Similarly, the incidences of specific complications are significantly lower in the LA group. There are significantly lower reoperation rate (LA = 4.5% vs. OA = 6.5%, p = 0.017), shorter average operating time (LA = 89 min vs. OA = 104 min, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (LOS) (LA = 6.7 days vs. OA = 11.6 days, p < 0.001) in the LA group. In the CCS, there is likely to be a selection bias favouring less complex adhesions in the LA group that may contribute to the better outcomes in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a probable selection bias, these results suggest that LA for SBO in selected patients has a reduced mortality, morbidity, reoperation rate, average operating time and LOS compared with OA. LA should be considered in appropriately selected patients with acute SBO due to adhesions.

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.

PURPOSE: Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. METHODS: A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed. RESULTS: The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.