The SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines. A Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items. 56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group. A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines. The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7-9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist. We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports.

The development of reporting guidelines over the past 20 years represents a major advance in scholarly publishing with recent evidence showing positive impacts. Whilst over 350 reporting guidelines exist, there are few that are specific to surgery. Here we describe the development of the STROCSS guideline (Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery). We published our protocol apriori. Current guidelines for case series (PROCESS), cohort studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) were analysed to compile a list of items which were used as baseline material for developing a suitable checklist for surgical cohort guidelines. These were then put forward in a Delphi consensus exercise to an expert panel of 74 surgeons and academics via Google Forms. The Delphi exercise was completed by 62% (46/74) of the participants. All the items were passed in a single round to create a STROCSS guideline consisting of 17 items. We present the STROCSS guideline for surgical cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies consisting of a 17-item checklist. We hope its use will increase the transparency and reporting quality of such studies. This guideline is also suitable for cross-sectional and case control studies. We encourage authors, reviewers, journal editors and publishers to adopt these guidelines.

Case series have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature and are still frequently published. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. No guideline exists for reporting case series, and our recent systematic review highlights the fact that key data are being missed from such reports. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for surgical case series. A Delphi consensus exercise was conducted to determine items to include in the reporting guideline. Items included those identified from a previous systematic review on case series and those included in the SCARE Guidelines for case reports. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. Surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case series were invited to participate. In round one, participants voted to define case series and also what elements should be included in them. In round two, participants voted on what items to include in the PROCESS guideline using a nine-point Likert scale to assess agreement as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. In round one, there was a 49% (29/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 81% (48/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants and Likert scores 7-9 were awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of an eight item checklist. We present the PROCESS Guideline, consisting of an eight item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. We encourage authors, reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and the wider surgical and scholarly community to adopt these.

Antibacterial lavage with topical antibiotics may reduce the occurrence of capsular contracture (CC) in breast augmentation. The authors investigate the efficacy of povidone-iodine combined with antibiotic irrigation in reducing the CC rate. The charts of 330 consecutive women who underwent cosmetic breast augmentation during 2 different periods (group A: 2004-2009, n = 165; group B: 2009-2010, n = 165) were retrospectively reviewed. All patients in the series underwent augmentation with the same surgeon (A.S.) via the inframammary approach and dual-plane pocket. In group A, patients received a single perioperative dose of 1.5 g of intravenous cephalothin and 750 mg of oral cephalexin twice a day for 7 days after discharge. In group B, patients perioperatively received 750 mg of intravenous cefuroxime, and each implant and pocket were irrigated with 25 mL of a 10% povidone-iodine solution mixed with 750 mg of cefuroxime and 80 mg of gentamicin diluted in 15 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution. After discharge, patients received 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once a day for 5 days. Postoperative complications included occurrence of infection, hematoma, seroma, and CC. Mean (SD) postoperative follow-up in groups A and B was 24 (+/- 13) months and 22 (+/- 3) months, respectively. The postoperative superficial wound infection rate was 1.8% and 1.2%, the seroma rate was 1.8% and 1.2%, and the hematoma rate was 0.6% and 1.2% in groups A and B, respectively. Ten CC cases (Baker grade 3 or 4) in group A and 1 in group B were reported (6% vs 0.6%; P = .006). Povidone-iodine and antibiotic irrigation in cosmetic breast augmentation yielded a lower CC rate than standard perioperative antibiotics in this series of patients.