Search

Introduction Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common and costly complication of surgery. International guidelines recommend topical alcoholic chlorhexidine (CHX) before surgery. However, upper limb surgeons continue to use other antiseptics, citing a lack of applicable evidence, and concerns related to open wounds and tourniquets. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different topical antiseptics before upper limb surgery. Methods This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited consecutive adults and children who underwent surgery distal to the shoulder joint. The intervention was use of CHX or povidone–iodine (PVI) antiseptics in either aqueous or alcoholic form. The primary outcome was SSI within 90 days. Mixed-effects time-to-event models were used to estimate the risk (hazard ratio (HR)) of SSI for patients undergoing elective and emergency upper limb surgery. Results A total of 2454 patients were included. The overall risk of SSI was 3.5 per cent. For elective upper limb surgery (1018 patients), alcoholic CHX appeared to be the most effective antiseptic, reducing the risk of SSI by 70 per cent (adjusted HR 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.11 to 0.84), when compared with aqueous PVI. Concerning emergency upper limb surgery (1436 patients), aqueous PVI appeared to be the least effective antiseptic for preventing SSI; however, there was uncertainty in the estimates. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion The findings align with the global evidence base and international guidance, suggesting that alcoholic CHX should be used for skin antisepsis before clean (elective upper limb) surgery. For emergency (contaminated or dirty) upper limb surgery, the findings of this study were unclear and contradict the available evidence, concluding that further research is necessary., This international study recruited 2454 children and adults undergoing surgery on their upper limb (arm or hand), from 42 hospitals worldwide. The overall risk of infection after surgery was 3.5 per cent. Before planned (elective) surgery, if surgeons cleaned the skin with alcoholic chlorhexidine, then the risk of infection was reduced by 70 per cent.

A meeting was held on Wednesday 15 January 2020 to examine the current evidence for non-routine imaging and for neuroendocrine screening in the management of military personnel with brain injury and overlapping symptom domains. The Summit aimed to specifically address the relative utility of magnetoencephalography (MEG), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in the UK context. This Consensus Report discusses points of consensus, points for further discussion/points of equipoise and recommendations that arose during, and following, the meeting.

Following open reduction and internal fixation for a proximal humerus fracture a 71-year-old man re-presented with wound changes consistent with infection and elevated inflammatory markers. No significant improvement was seen with concomitant intravenous antibiotics and multiple debridement procedures. This case was further complicated by soft tissue breakdown at the site of a left thigh haematoma also requiring debridement. Surgical site infections represent the most common cause of morbidity postoperatively. This case highlights the importance of considering a number of differential diagnoses. A diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum prompted systemic corticosteroid therapy giving rapid clinical improvement.

Patients who are critically ill and have large areas of skin loss or breakdown present a difficult management problem. They require the combination of intensive therapy facilities to support failing organs and specialized skin care, sometimes including extensive debridement and reconstruction. The expertise required for both aspects of treatment are found uniquely on a burns unit. We present five patients with large areas of cutaneous loss or damage secondary to a variety of non-burn aetiologies who were managed on a burns unit. We suggest that a burns unit may be the most appropriate place for such patients to be treated during both the acute phase of their illness and the later stages of surgical reconstruction and physical rehabilitation.

The use of gloves when conducting invasive procedures and the reporting of needlestick injuries have been strongly encouraged. Despite this, neither practice appears to be universal. In order to determine the rates of glove usage and needlestick injury reporting, we conducted a survey of junior doctors in three hospitals in the UK. Of the 190 respondents, the majority rarely wore gloves for venesection, insertion of intravenous cannulas or arterial blood gas sampling. For more major procedures (insertion of central venous lines, insertion of thoracostomy tubes, suturing) gloves were invariably worn. Only 17.5% of needlestick injuries were reported. The rates of glove usage and needlestick injury reporting were lower than previous studies have demonstrated in North America. Surgeons suffered the most needlestick injuries and were the least likely to report them. The low reporting rate may have serious implications, particularly in view of the new Government guidelines on needlestick injuries which involve HIV-infected blood. By failing to use gloves and report needlestick injuries, junior doctors, in particular surgeons, are placing themselves and patients at increased risk of blood-borne transmissible diseases.

The aim of the study was to assess the impact of the introduction of femorodistal arterial bypass grafting on the patterns of lower limb amputation and reconstructive surgery, in particular the success rates of distal, conservative, amputations. Two 2-year cohorts of patients 7 years apart were analysed by a retrospective analysis of departmental audit and patient records. Significantly more patients undergoing distal amputation were considered to have reconstructible arterial disease in the later cohort. This was paralleled by an increase in the rate of suprapopliteal/popliteal and distal arterial bypass and a fall in below-knee amputation rate in this group of patients. The overall healing rate and rate of conversion of distal amputations were not adversely affected by the introduction of femorodistal bypass grafting, despite the fact that more distal amputees were non-diabetic in this second group. There was a high rate of success for distal amputations combined with femorodistal bypass, but the subgroup was too small for statistical analysis. We conclude that the use of distal amputation, with or without distal arterial bypass, offers a promising, although unproven, prospect for lower limb conservation even in non-diabetics.