BACKGROUND We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopy as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of pain abdomen, compare it with clinical examination and common radiological investigations like x-ray erect abdomen and ultrasound abdomen, demonstrate the occasions in which it is useful as a therapeutic tool and evaluate the benefits and complications of diagnostic laparoscopy. METHODS 100 cases of pain abdomen who presented to the outpatient and emergency departments were admitted and evaluated. They consisted of both male and female patients. The cases consisted of both acute and chronic abdomen evaluated over a period of 2 years i.e. from January 2017 to January 2019. RESULTS 100 cases of pain abdomen who presented to the outpatient and emergency department were evaluated. Diagnostic laparoscopy could diagnose 68 out of 79 cases of acute pain abdomen and 20 out of 21 cases of chronic pain abdomen. 49 out of 79 acute cases and 13 cases out of 21 chronic cases required surgery. 12 cases could not be diagnosed, out of these 9 patients had symptomatic relief. There were no complications in the series. CONCLUSIONS Diagnostic laparoscopy is simple, safe, easily available and diagnostically accurate, but it is invasive, traumatic and not the first choice for diagnosis. It is mostly useful for those with abdominal pain where definite cause could not be diagnosed with clinical examination or radiological investigations. It has reduced the number of negative laparotomies and in those cases requiring laparotomy.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDInfections that occur in the wound created by an invasive surgical procedure are generally referred to as surgical site infections (SSIs). Abdominal surgical site infections are among the most common infectious complications in hospitalized patients and are associated with serious consequences for outcomes and costs. They account for up to 14% of SSIs in studies conducted in developing countries. The present study aims to determine the frequency of surgical site infections in patients undergoing various abdominal surgical procedures and the associated risk factors, the organisms implicated and their sensitivity patterns, and the outcomes observed after treatment. METHODSDetails of the patients who developed SSI following abdominal surgeries were recorded in a proforma which included relevant information with regard to history, clinical examination and perioperative management. A cross-sectional study was performed on 100 patients who developed SSI following abdominal surgeries. The type of SSI, the risk factors encountered, the causative organisms isolated and their sensitivity patterns and the outcomes following treatment were studied. RESULTS100 out of 867 patients who underwent abdominal surgeries, both elective and emergency, over a period of 24 months, developed SSI at the rate of 11.53% (7.05% elective and 19.42% emergency). Surgery for duodenal ulcer perforation was the most common abdominal procedure to develop SSI. Smoking, anaemia and blood transfusions were the most frequent risk factors. Majority of the cultures yielded E.coli, Klebsiella and Staphylococcus aureus species. Most were superficial incisional SSIs and resolved after drainage of pus, mostly by the removal of a stitch.