A 72-year-old man presented with urinary retention, weight loss, haematuria and severe acute kidney injury. He had never before been admitted to hospital and his past medical history included only an inguinal hernia. On examination, he appeared uraemic and had a right-sided painful hernia. A three-way catheter was inserted, bladder washouts performed and irrigation started. An ultrasound showed severe bilateral hydronephrosis and a ‘thickened bladder’ and this was thought to be obstructive uropathy secondary to bladder cancer. Twenty-four hours later his hernia doubled in diameter, became incarcerated and a CT of the abdomen and pelvis showed an inguinal hernia of both bladder and bowel, with the catheter tip inside the bladder hernia. He was taken to theatres and an open mesh repair was performed with a rigid cystoscopy to assist in locating and reducing the bladder. He required intensive care and dialysis postoperatively and remains on regular dialysis following discharge.

Aims To study if right lower abdominal pain could be managed safely on ambulatory basis when referred from emergency department or primary healthcare as suspected acute appendicitis to surgical ambulatory unit (SAU). Methods Data collated prospectively involving 586 patients, who presented with right iliac fossa/right-sided pelvic pain from january 2019 to January 2021. Results 0ut of 586 patients, 234 (40%) were admitted and 352 (60%) managed in ambulatory settings after being reviewed by Consulant-lead surgical oncall team. Age ranged from 3 to 92 years. Male to female ratio was 3:2. Their management included clinical history/and examination, urinalysis and blood tests. 157 (44%) patients had scans, 43 (12%) had CT scans and 114 (32%) had pelvic USS the same day or the following morning/day and were reviewed by oncall-surgeons and 107 (30%) patients had repeat blood tests. 39 (11%) out of 352 paitents were admitted the following day review, of which 18 (5%) patients underwent laproscopic appendicectomy (LA) and 8 (2.2%) patients treated conservatively. 9 (1.98%) patients represented with persistent/or worsening symptoms and 5 (1.4%) patients of these had LA and 2 (0.56%) patients had pelvic collection, drained radiologically and 2 (0.56%) had wound infections treated with antibiotics. Complications rate in ambulatory patients compared to in-patients was insignificant, P-value set at 0.05% using Mann-Whitney U test. Conclusions

Aim The purpose of this study was to determine the role of Microbiological swabs taken during an Incision and drainage for Pilonidal abscess in patient management. Method We performed a closed-loop audit to determine the role of pus swabs in the management of pilonidal abscess. Parameters like patient demographics, date of surgery, whether or not pus sent for microbiological examination, the subsequent report, the time required for sample processing, antibiotics prescribed were considered. The data was collated, analysed, and presented at clinical governance. We then implemented in our treatment protocol to stop the practice. This data was again, prospectively collected to complete the audit cycle. Result A total of 250 patient were included in this study. Prior to the change of practice, swabs were sent in 77% of the cases. The average reporting time of the swabs was 4.3 days and 92% of the patients were discharged on antibiotics. After conducting multiple teaching sessions for the trainees and educating the theatre staff, the percentage of swabs sent was brought down to 58%. Conclusion The pilonidal abscess has high infection and recurrence rate. Hence, the management involves incision, drainage and antibiotics cover in most cases. In our study, the swab results did not alter patients management. Most of them were treated with Co-Amoxiclav and some required additional Metronidazole. Hence, we suggested the routine use of swab for culture in pilonidal abscess cases are unwarranted. This change of practice resulted in huge cost savings at our hospital.

Aims To study whether routine use of drains in colorectal surgery/anastomosis help reduce postoperative complications and whether has a selective role in high risk patients. Methods A systematic search of electronic database performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central database. Clinical literature from 1988 to 2018 was reviewed including randomized, non-randomized controlled studies, meta-analysis and systematic reviews for routine use of drain versus no usage of drain at index surgery & compared for clinical benefits. Terms used for search were ‘colorectal’, ‘rectal’, ‘colonic’ surgery/anastomosis’ and drain. Main outcome: anastomotic leak whilst secondary outcome were to study collections, re-surgical intervention, wound infection, DVT/PE, chest complications & mortality. Case reports and small cohort studies (<25 patients) were excluded. Results 2243 patients were included from 14 RCTs, 2 meta-analysis and 3 systematic reviews. 1178 patients in the drain group and 1065 patients in the no drain group. Using Chi square test, data analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the two groups (drains Versus no drains) for anastomotic leakage, P >0.35; re-operation, P >0.41, wound infection, P >0.41; DVT/PE, P > 1.1; chest complications, P > 0.51 and mortality, P >0.48. Conclusions Routine use of drains in colorectal surgery/anastomosis does not confer significant benefit in reducing postoperative complications. However, selective use of drains in the high risk patients for anastomotic leak may have a role but warrants more studies.