Based on the results of this study, we recommend local application of gentamicin in the sacral cavity in patients who undergo abdominoperineal resection after shortterm radiotherapy.

Sidestream dark field imaging is a very promising technique for bowel microcirculatory visualization and assessment. It is comparable to sublingual assessment and the analysis produces a similar outcome with slightly differing anatomical features.

BackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of healthcare-associated infection in gastrointestinal (GI) surgical procedures, which often has major consequences for patient recovery and increased healthcare costs due to prolonged hospital stay. This article provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of prophylactic application of resorbable gentamicin-containing collagen implants (GCI) in the prevention of SSI following high-risk GI surgical procedures.MethodNine publications were identified using the PubMed online database and search terms ‘gentamicin collagen implant’ plus ‘surgical site infection’, ‘wound infection’ and ‘gastrointestinal surgery’.ResultsData from 483 patients treated prophylactically have demonstrated that GCI can reduce the wound infection rate in high-risk GI surgical procedures and improve wound healing after pilonidal sinus excision. In a study of 221 patients who underwent colorectal surgery, the wound infection rate was reduced to 5.6% in the GCI group compared to 18.4% in the control group (P < 0.01). GCI also positively influences the post-operative course for patients undergoing particularly risky procedures e.g. abdominoperineal resection (APR) combined with neoadjuvant radiotherapy. In one such patient series, GCI reduced the wound infection rate by over 70% and the length of hospital stay by 40%. Few side effects of GCI were noted in the 9 clinical studies.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that GCI can have a positive effect on wound infection rates in high-risk GI surgery and can also improve wound healing after pilonidal sinus excision.

Introduction: Intestinal blood flow is often named as a key factor in the pathophysiology of anastomotic leakage. The distribution between mucosal and serosal microperfusion during surgery remains to be elucidated. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess if the mucosal microcirculation of the intestine is more vulnerable to a surgical hit than the serosal microcirculation during surgery. Methods: In an observational cohort study (n = 9 patients), the microcirculation of the bowel serosa and mucosa was visualized with incident dark-field imaging during surgery. At the planned anastomosis, the following microcirculatory parameters were determined: microvascular flow index (MFI), percentage of perfused vessels (PPV), perfused vessel density (PVD), and total vessel density (TVD). Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). Results: Perfusion parameters and vessel density were significantly higher for the mucosa than the serosal microcirculation at the planned site for anastomosis or stoma. Mucosal MFI was 3.00 (IQR 3.00–3.00) compared to a serosal MFI of 2.75 (IQR 2.21–2.94), p = 0.03. The PPV was 99% (IQR 98–100) versus 92% (IQR 66–94), p = 0.01. The TVD was 16.77 mm/mm2 (IQR 13.04–18.01) versus 10.42 mm/mm2 (IQR 9.36–11.81), p = 0.01, and the PVD was 15.44 mm/mm2 (IQR 13.04–17.78) versus 9.02 mm/mm2 (IQR 6.43–9.43), p = 0.01. Conclusions: The mucosal microcirculation was preserved, while lower perfusion of the serosa was found at the planned anastomosis or stoma during surgery. Further research is needed to link our observations to the clinically relevant endpoint of anastomotic leakage.

Background: Training of skills in simulators is preferred over learning on patients so as to avoid undue injury to patients and to allow more efficient use of resources. Most simulators are costly and require a dedicated space. The aim of this study was to evaluate a simple desktop simulator, the Mirror Trainer. Methods: Thirty medical students were randomly assigned to three groups. One group was taught laparoscopic suturing in the Mirror Trainer, the second group used a pelvic training box, while the third group served as a control group and did not receive any training. All suture attempts during training were recorded on video. A blinded, independent investigator analyzed the videos. At the completion of training, the suturing skills of each participant were evaluated in an animal model. Results: Training with the Mirror Trainer required less time than with the pelvic trainer (p < 0.001). Compared with the control group, the Mirror Trainer group and the pelvic trainer group were significantly faster at creating three knots in the pig (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Both training groups performed equally well on the animal model (p = 0.99). Conclusion: The Mirror Trainer and the pelvic trainer are equally effective in teaching laparoscopic suturing skills but training with the Mirror Trainer requires less time, can be done on any desktop, and is less costly.