Colon and rectal surgery surgical site infection reduction bundle: To improve is to change.

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of the Surgical Care Improvement Project, surgical site infections remain a source of morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the value of implementing a colorectal bundle on SSI rates. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2016 a total of 1351 patients underwent colorectal operations. Patients were grouped into pre-implementation (Group A, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2012), implementation (Group B, January 1, 2013-December 31, 2014) and post-implementation (Group C, January 1, 2015-December 31, 2016). Primary endpoints were superficial SSI, deep SSI, wound separation and total SSI. RESULTS: After the bundle was implemented, there was a significant reduction in superficial (6.6%-4%, p < 0.05), deep (3.7%-1.1%, p < 0.05), and total SSI rates (10.9%-4.7%, p < 0.05). Comparing Group A to Group C there was a decrease in total SSI (9.4%-4.7%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the bundle resulted in a reduction in overall SSI rates particularly as compliance increased. This study offers evidence that small changes can lead to significant decreases in surgical site infections.

Anal incontinence-sphincter ani repair: indications, techniques, outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal incontinence is a debilitating problem that has many different causes. There also are many treatments options, from behavioral modification to sphincteroplasty to artificial anal sphincter and colostomy. In a society with an aging population, fecal incontinence is an ever-increasing problem and will continue to grow. DISCUSSION: Treatment plans need to be individually tailored for each patient. The surgeon should be proficient in different types of procedures and match the procedure with the needs of the patient. Long-term follow-up of these patients must continue to help us better serve this patient population.

Laryngeal mask airway--a novel method of airway protection during ERCP: comparison with endotracheal intubation.

BACKGROUND: ERCP sometimes requires deep sedation and rarely general anesthesia with airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway device is placed perorally to create a seal over the larynx. Unlike endotracheal intubation, no tube traverses the vocal cords, thus reducing airway stimulation and obviating the need to administer muscle relaxants. The feasibility of using the laryngeal mask airway during ERCP was evaluated and recovery times compared for patients undergoing ERCP with the laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, anesthesia records were reviewed for anesthesiologist-assisted ERCP procedures performed during a 30-month period. Demographics, procedure duration, and time from endoscope removal to extubation were abstracted. Either propofol or inhalation agents were used for anesthesia in all patients. OBSERVATIONS: Anesthesiologists administered sedation for 41 ERCPs. The airway was managed in 12 patients with endotracheal intubation and the laryngeal mask airway in 20 patients. Six patients underwent laryngeal mask airway insertion and removal while prone. A therapeutic duodenoscope was passed beyond the laryngeal mask airway with little or no resistance in all cases. Repositioning the laryngeal mask airway during the procedure was required in 1 case. Laryngeal mask airway use was associated with shorter extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation (7.2 vs. 12 min.; p = 0.004). There were no airway complications. CONCLUSION: ERCP can be performed while using the laryngeal mask airway for airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway can be placed with the patient prone, obviating the need to change position. Laryngeal mask airway shortens extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation.