Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in High-risk Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery.

Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has emerged as an adjunct to reduce wound complication rates in many surgical domains. This study investigated the prophylactic use of PICO NPWT in high-risk patients undergoing oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter national audit. The findings were compared against Association of Breast Surgery/British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (ABS/BAPRAS) Oncoplastic Guidelines for best practice. Results: Data from 267 patients were included from seven centers. All patients had at least one high-risk factor for postoperative wound complications, whereas 78 patients (29.2%) had more than one. Thirty-six patients (13.5%) developed postoperative wound complications. An estimated 16 (6%) developed skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence occurred in 13 patients (4.9%), and 15 patients (5.6%) developed postoperative wound infection. Eleven patients (4.1%) required further surgery due to wound complications. In total, 158 patients underwent mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction. Postoperative wound complication rate was comparable in this subgroup (n = 22; 13.9%). Implant loss rate was 3.8%, which was within the 5% target mentioned in the ABS/BAPRAS guidelines. The estimated total cost saving was US $105,600 (£84,613) and US $395.50 (£316.90) per patient. Wound infection rate (5.6%) was much lower than the 25% reported by both iBRA study and National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. Conclusions: Our study suggests that prophylactic use of NPWT in oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery results in low rates of wound-related complications with associated healthcare cost benefits in patients with high-risk factors for wound-related complications. However, a prospective randomized control trial is required.

Blinded comparison of faecal loading on plain radiography versus radio-opaque marker transit studies in the assessment of constipation.

AIM: To compare faecal loading on plain radiography versus radio-opaque marker transit studies in the assessment of constipation. METHODS: The study group was a convenience sample of patients attending the Durham Constipation Clinic. All patients underwent transit studies according to an established protocol, and severity of constipation was assessed contemporaneously using a validated questionnaire (PAC-SYM). Transit studies were performed using radio-opaque markers that were ingested over 3 consecutive days, with a radiograph taken on the fourth day. Digital images of the radiograph were digitally altered to remove all traces of the transit markers without affecting the underlying pattern of faecal loading. Four observers assessed faecal loading independently; two clinicians (C1 and C2) and two radiologists (R1 and R2). C1 and R1 used a previously described formal scoring method of assessing faecal loading, whereas C2 and R2 assessed the images as if they were in a clinic or reporting session, grading the faecal loading as mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: One hundred patients were recruited out of 186 presenting in a 2-year period. All patients completed assessments. The correlation between observers was only fair to moderate (r ranging from 0.34-0.51). There were some surprisingly marked disagreements in 10-18% of assessments. The correlation between faecal loading and transit was weak for all observers (r ranging from 0.261-0.311). Symptom severity did not correlate with faecal loading. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is considerable inter-observer variation in the radiological assessment of faecal loading, irrespective of the training or method used by the observer, and that there is very poor correlation with colonic transit. The diagnosis of constipation, and the assessment of severity, is best performed clinically.

Spilled gall stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review of the literature.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with spillage of gall stones in 5%-40% of procedures, but complications occur very rarely. There are, however, isolated case reports describing a range of complications occurring both at a distance from and near to the subhepatic area. This review looks into the various modes of presentation, ways to minimise spillage, treating the complications, and the legal implications.