Search

Introduction: Studies have shown that post‐operative telephone follow‐up is satisfactory and effective. As high quality evidence is scant, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare it against outpatient clinic review for emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy. Method: Patients who received emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy were eligible for this study. Once recruited, they were randomly allocated to either clinic review or telephone follow‐up on discharge. Participants were reviewed at 2 weeks after operation and contacted again at 4 weeks after initial follow‐up for satisfaction survey. Results: One hundred and seventy‐nine participants were recruited with one withdrawn consent and six excluded. Ninety‐six underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy and 76 had laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ninety‐six attended clinic review and 76 had telephone follow‐up. The two groups were similar in baseline variables. Non‐attendance rate was higher for clinic review cohort (24% vs 6.6%, P = 0.002). Participants who received telephone review reported higher satisfaction level (9.31 vs 8.85, P = 0.002), and most patients prefer telephone follow‐up (73.1%, P < 0.0001). No difference was detected for missed complications (P = 0.354). Conclusion: Telephone follow‐up post laparoscopic appendicectomy or cholecystectomy is safe, satisfying and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical site infection is a common cause of post-operative morbidity. Although a number of studies on negative pressure dressings including PICO TM (Smith & Nephew, St. Petersburg, PL) have shown reduced rates of surgical site infections (SSI), more evidence is required. This study sought to determine if PICO dressings reduce surgical site infections or other surgical site complications in primarily closed laparotomy incisions after clean-contaminated surgery in moderate-risk patients. Methods: Patients undergoing laparotomy and bowel resection were randomly assigned to PICO or conventional dressings. The incision was assessed one-week post-operatively for any infection. Patient notes including outpatient appointments were later examined for any delayed infection during the same or subsequent admissions or in the outpatient setting. Patient characteristics such as body mass index (BMI), incision depth, and comorbidities were noted to identify any group who may show more benefit from the negative pressure dressings. Results: From March 1, 2015 until September 30, 2017, 217 patients consented to participate in the trial. Twenty-nine were subsequently excluded, leaving 188 patients with 96 receiving PICO and 92 receiving a standard dressing. Twenty-seven (14%) patients developed a surgical site infection; 13 received a PICO dressing and 14 received standard dressing (p = 0.73), indicating no difference in surgical site infections between the two types of dressing (odds ratio [OR] 1.1). Thirty-one (16.5%) patients developed other surgical site complications. Eleven of these patients received a PICO dressing and 20 received the standard dressing (p = 0.06, OR 2.1). Conclusion: This study does not support the routine use of PICO dressings on uncomplicated laparotomy incisions in moderate-risk patients.