Search

Surgical site infection is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs, as well as a poorer patient quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted scientifically-validated guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. Most of these protocols have resulted in improved postoperative results. The Surgical Infection Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery conducted a critical review of the scientific evidence and the most recent international guidelines in order to select measures with the highest degree of evidence to be applied in Spanish surgical services. The best measures are: no removal or clipping of hair from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcohol solutions, adequate systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60minutes before the incision in a single preoperative dose; intraoperative re-dosing when indicated), maintenance of normothermia and perioperative maintenance of glucose levels., (Copyright © 2019 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

There is a wide variability in the management of acute cholecystitis. A survey among the members of the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) analyzed the preferences of Spanish surgeons for its surgical management. The majority of the 771 responders didn't declare any subspecialty (41.6%), 21% were HPB surgeons, followed by colorectal and upper-GI specialities. Early cholecystectomy during the first admission is the preferred method of management of 92.3% of surgeons, but only 42.7% succeed in adopting this practice. The most frequent reasons for changing their preferred practice were: Patients not fit for surgery (43.6%) and lack of availability of emergency operating room (35.2%). A total of 88.9% perform surgery laparoscopically. The majority of AEC surgeons advise index admission cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, although only half of them succeed in its actual implementation. There is room for improvement in the management of acute cholecystitis in Spanish hospitals., (Copyright © 2013 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Worldwide incidence of thyroid cancer has increased in recent decades., Objective: To provide evidence of the diagnostic and care efficiency of a monographic thyroid nodule clinic integrating clinical examination, ultrasound examination, and cytology with on site evaluation., Patients and Methods: Patients attending the monographic thyroid nodule clinic from January 2004 to June 2010. Two periods may be distinguished based on availability of ultrasound equipment at the time of the visit: a first period (P1: 01/2004-09/2007) where no ultrasound equipment was available at the clinic and FNA by palpation was performed, and a second period (P2: 10/2007-06/2010) where this equipment was available and ultrasound-guided FNA was performed., Results: A total of 1036 patients [P1: 537 (52%), P2: 499 (48%)] were seen and enrolled. Diagnostic efficiency (P1 vs P2): 143 vs 181 patients were seen annually, p<0.001; FNA number/nodule: 1.68 vs 1.17, p<0.001; percent FNAs with inadequate material: 26% vs 5.3%, p<0.001; mean (SD) nodule size: 23.6 (12.4) vs 21.7 (11.7) mm, p 0.040; proportion of nodules examined less than 10mm in size: 9.9% vs 13.7%, p 0.030. Care efficiency: mean time (range) from the first visit to surgery indication: 332 (0-2177) vs 108 (0-596) days, p<0.001; proportion of patients referred for surgery due to suspect cytology/other reasons: 1.06 vs 2.21, p<0.001; and operated benign neoplasm/pathology: 0.47 vs 0.93, p=0.002., Conclusion: A monographic thyroid nodule clinic integrating clinical examination, ultrasound, and cytology evaluated on site increases diagnostic and care efficiency in patients with thyroid nodules., (Copyright © 2012 SEEN. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Despite improvements in our knowledge of the physiopathology of severe infection, diagnostic methods, antibiotic therapy, postoperative care and surgical techniques, a substantial number of patients with intraabdominal infection (IAI) will develop advanced stages of septic insult requiring admission to the intensive care unit. The success of treatment of IAI is multifactorial and the best antibiotic protocol may be insufficient unless adequate control of the focus of infection has been achieved. The present article discusses the appropriacy of empirical antibiotic therapy and the main pathogens associated with treatment failure. We also analyze the patients at risk of infection with microorganisms requiring broad-spectrum antimicrobial coverage. However, excessive antibiotic treatment, in terms of either spectrum or duration, could jeopardize future patients in an environment already threatened by the scarcity of research and development into new molecules required for the emergence of pathogens resistant to current antibiotics., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier España S.L. All rights reserved.)

A significant number of patients with abdominal infection develop advanced stages of infection and mortality is still above 20%. Failure is multifactorial and is associated with an increase of bacterial resitance, inappropriate empirical treatment, a higher comorbidity of patients and poor source control of infection. These guidelines discuss each of these problems and propose measures to avoid the failure based on the best current scientific evidence., (Copyright 2009 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

A significant number of patients with abdominal infection develop advanced stages of infection and mortality is still above 20%. Failure is multifactorial and is associated with an increase of bacterial resistance, inappropriate empirical treatment, a higher comorbidity of patients and poor source control of infection. These guidelines discuss each of these problems and propose measures to avoid the failure based on the best current scientific evidence.

Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have undergone important changes in the last five years that have influenced the choice of therapy: i) increase of their frequency in hospital-associated settings and, more recently, in community settings; ii) better knowledge of clinical implications of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of vancomycin; iii) improvement of current standard methods for rapid detection of MRSA in clinical samples; iv) clear evidence that vancomycin is losing efficacy against MRSA with MIC > 1 microg/mL; and v) appearance of new antibiotics suitable for use in these infections (linezolid, daptomycin, tigecyclin). Under this situation guidelines for the treatment of common infections caused by MRSA appear to be necessary to improve the efficacy and reduce the mortality.

Background: The empiric antibiotic treatment of intraabdominal infections is in constant evolution. Monotherapy appears to be a desirable goal because of the simplicity of its administration, lack of toxic effects and wide spectrum., Patients and Methods: A multicentre, prospective, randomized, open study was carried out to compare two antibiotic regimens in the treatment of intraabdominal infections in patients undergoing surgery. Ninety-eight consecutive patients were randomly allocated into two groups. One group (GM, n = 51) received meropenem (1 g/8 h) and the other (GCM, n = 47) a combination of cefotaxime (2 g/8 h) plus metronidazol (0.5 g/8 h). Clinical and bacteriological responses were assessed at the end of treatment and at 2-4 weeks., Results: The severity of patients as assessed by the APACHE II score was similar in both groups (GM: 7.2 and GCM: 8.1). Three patients in each group could not be evaluated due to premature interruption of treatment or deviation from the protocol. The mean duration of treatment was 7.4 days in GM and 7.9 days in GCM. A satisfactory clinical response was obtained in 95% of patients in both groups. 31 patients (61%) in GM and 26 patients (55%) in GCM were bacteriologically evaluable. Bacteriological erradication was achieved in 94% of patients in GM and in 92% of patients in GCM., Conclusion: Meropenem is a good alternative for single antibiotic therapy in intraabdominal infections of moderate severity.