Impact of bodyweight-adjusted antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical-site infection rates.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) adjustment according to bodyweight to prevent surgical-site infections (SSI) is controversial. The impact of weight-adjusted AMP dosing on SSI rates was investigated here. METHODS: Results from a first study of patients undergoing visceral, vascular or trauma operations, and receiving standard AMP, enabled retrospective evaluation of the impact of bodyweight and BMI on SSI rates, and identification of patients eligible for weight-adjusted AMP. In a subsequent observational prospective study, patients weighing at least 80 kg were assigned to receive double-dose AMP. Risk factors for SSI, including ASA classification, duration and type of surgery, wound class, diabetes, weight in kilograms, BMI, age, and AMP dose, were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: In the first study (3508 patients), bodyweight and BMI significantly correlated with higher rates of all SSI subclasses (both P < 0.001). An 80-kg cut-off identified patients receiving single-dose AMP who were at higher risk of SSI. In the prospective study (2161 patients), 546 patients weighing 80 kg or more who received only single-dose AMP had higher rates of all SSI types than a group of 1615 who received double-dose AMP (odds ratio (OR) 4.40, 95 per cent c.i. 3.18 to 6.23; P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis including 5021 patients from both cohorts, bodyweight (OR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02; P = 0.008), BMI (OR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02; P = 0.007) and double-dose AMP (OR 0.33, 0.23 to 0.46; P < 0.001) among other variables were independently associated with SSI rates. CONCLUSION: Double-dose AMP decreases SSI rates in patients weighing 80 kg or more.

Adverse obstetric history is not a risk factor for poor outcome after ventral rectopexy for obstructive defaecation syndrome.

AIM: Ventral rectopexy (VR) has gained popularity in the management of obstructive defaecation syndrome (ODS) due to a symptomatic rectocele ± intussusception. Data on the efficacy and safety of VR are variable and there are few predictors of successful outcome. This study aimed to examine whether or not an adverse obstetric history influenced the functional outcome following VR for ODS. METHOD: This was a retrospective study of a cohort of 76 consecutive patients who had undergone VR for ODS at a tertiary referral centre between 2012 and 2015. Patients were followed up by telephone questionnaire. The obstetric history and pre- and postoperative symptoms of ODS and faecal incontinence (FI) were obtained from telephone interviews. RESULTS: In this cohort, symptoms of ODS were significantly improved by surgery, with 56% of patients showing a reduction of symptoms of 50% or more (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that a lower body mass index (BMI; 24.4 vs 27.3 kg/m2 ; P < 0.05) and shorter duration of symptoms (7 vs 10 years; P < 0.05) led to a better outcome. VR had no effect on FI. Obstetric factors such as foetal weight, instrumental delivery, episiotomy, perineal tear and total number of deliveries did not influence outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients with a less straightforward obstetric history can be reassured that this should not adversely influence the functional outcome after VR for ODS. Colorectal surgeons who offer this surgery should warn patients with an elevated BMI or with longstanding symptoms that the operation may be less successful than for those with a lower BMI or shorter duration of symptoms.