Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p<0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05-2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p<0·001). Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication. DFID-MRC-Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trial Development Grant, National Institute of Health Research Global Health Research Unit Grant.

Background/Objectives: This study assessed the feasibility and security of remote surgical wound monitoring using the RedScar© smartphone app, which employs automated diagnosis for early visual detection of infections without direct healthcare personnel involvement. Additionally, patient satisfaction with telematic care was evaluated as a secondary aim. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the second leading cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), leading to prolonged hospital stays, heightened patient distress, and increased healthcare costs. Methods: The study employed a prospective paired-cohort and single-blinded design, with a sample size of 47 adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery. RedScar© was used for remote telematic monitoring, evaluating the feasibility and security of this approach. A satisfaction questionnaire assessed patient experience. The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05485233. Results: Out of 47 patients, 41 successfully completed both remote and in-person follow-ups. RedScar© demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% in detecting SSIs, with a specificity of 83.13%. The kappa coefficient of 0.8171 indicated substantial agreement between the application’s results and human observers. Patient satisfaction with telemonitoring was high: 97.6% believed telemonitoring reduces costs, 90.47% perceived it prevents work/school absenteeism, and 80.9% found telemonitoring comfortable. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate an automatic smartphone application on real patients for diagnosing postoperative wound infections. It establishes the safety and feasibility of telematic follow-up using the RedScar© application for surgical wound assessment. The high sensitivity suggests its utility in identifying true cases of infection, highlighting its potential role in clinical practice. Future studies are needed to address limitations and validate the efficacy of RedScar© in diverse patient populations.

Background: The liver is the most injured organ following abdominal trauma. Uncontrolled bleeding remains the main cause of early liver injury-related death, with a mortality rate of 50–54% in the first 24 h after admission and with 80% of operative deaths. Packing and reoperation account for the increased survival in severe liver trauma, and they are recommended for severe liver injuries (grades IV–V). Perihepatic packing can lead to several potential complications. An excessive packing can cause complications due to abdominal compartment syndrome, while a soft packing may be ineffective, and thus, bleeding can continue inadvertently with the consequent hypovolemic shock and potentially death. Methods: We designed a new vacuum-based device to perform perihepatic packing without the negative side-effects of the classic technique. We conducted a prospective pilot feasibility study in a porcine model. We compared the traditional perihepatic packing (PHP) (n = 2) with the new VacBagPack device (VBP) (n = 2). Results: Both pigs survived with the new device and showed an equivalent outcome to the one that survived in the traditional technique group. Blood tests were similar too. This suggests that VBP could be at least as effective as traditional PHP. Conclusions: We establish a first step towards the development of a new packing device. A new study with a bigger sample size still in pigs will be conducted. Also, an industrial model of the device is currently in production.

Objective: To evaluate the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) and determine its impact on clinical outcomes in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) terms. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic computer literature search on PubMed was performed using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: “low grade serous ovarian cancer” AND/OR “lymphadenectomy” AND/OR “staging” AND/OR “ovarian cancer” AND/OR “cytoreduction”. Separate searches were performed with MeSH terms on MEDLINE and EMBASE to extract all the relevant literature available. We included only patients with histologically confirmed LGSOC. Results: Three studies were considered in the quantitative analysis. Systematic lymphadenectomy in LGSOC failed to provide a significant OS or PFS benefit in LGSOC when compared to no lymphadenectomy in the entire (all the stages) population (for OS: HR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.42, 3.18] I2 = 84% and for PFS: HR = 1.46, 95% CI [0.63, 3.41], I2 = 71%), nor did it in the subtype analysis regarding FIGO stages. For FIGO early-stage I-II LGSOC, the DFS data were pooled (HR = 1.48, 95% CI [0.58, 3.78], I2 = 75%). In patients with advanced-stage (FIGO II–IV), we also failed to prove survival benefit for lymphadenectomy in OS (HR = 1.74, 95% CI [0.87, 3.48], I2 = 11%) or DFS (HR = 1.48, 95% CI [0.58, 3.78], I2 = 75%) compared to no lymphadenectomy. Conclusion: More extensive prospective research is mandatory to understand the real impact of lymphadenectomy on survival in LGSOC. The existing literature does not provide strong evidence.