BackgroundThe incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures.ObjectiveTo estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm.ResultsFifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14 618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis.ConclusionsThe IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.

No abstract

Plasmapheresis is a safe procedure when performed for neurological indications by experienced personnel in a large pheresis unit. The most frequent adverse event is infection of the venous access site.

The United Kingdom achieved interrupted endemic measles transmission for 36 months in 2016. Despite this, ongoing challenges from sporadic measles cases typically imported from abroad remain. We summarise a B3 measles genotype outbreak in south-east Wales occurring between May and September 2017, linked with other European outbreaks, and lessons learnt. Seventeen confirmed cases and one probable case occurred principally in education and healthcare-settings. Six confirmed cases attended healthcare settings when infectious, without being isolated.

The most common method of assessing the quality of medical education is through a selection of qualitative assessments, usually as part of a programme evaluation. Common qualitative assessments include measurements of students' and teachers' participation, outcome measures such as assessment results, and qualitative assessments such as interviews and questionnaires of students and teachers. Programme evaluation can therefore be a process that is both laborious and subject to accusations of a lack of objectivity. As a result, the development of a quantitative tool that could be used alongside a programme evaluation may be both useful and desirable. A pragmatic scoring system, utilizing routinely collected quantitative data, termed as the Quality Assessment Tool, was developed during the 2013 academic year within the setting of an Emergency Medicine training programme in the UK. This tool was tested against the standard assessment currently used for this programme to establish whether the quantitative tool correlated with the programme evaluation. Second, the individual items within the tool were investigated to identify any correlations with the current assessment of quality established by the programme evaluation. The Quality Assessment Tool appears to be correlated to the quality of training delivered at individual training sites in a single specialty. It certainly identifies those centres delivering the highest quality of training and also identifies those centres whose training is consistently of a lower standard. The assessment tool is less accurate at ranking those training centres whose training is merely 'satisfactory'; whether this is a result of the imprecision of the tool itself or a reflection of the subjective nature of the current assessment (i.e. whether the current evaluation system lacks validity) cannot be stated. In summary, it appears to be possible to use a single quantitative tool to reliably, and with validity, measure the quality of training delivered at a postgraduate medical training centre. Although it is not envisaged that this would, or should, replace ongoing quality assurance systems such as programme evaluations, a validated tool can be derived for a given setting to usefully inform and augment current quality management systems in postgraduate medical education.