Introduction: damage control surgery (DCS) is well recognized as a surgical strategy for patients sustaining severe abdominal trauma. Literature suggests the indications, operative times, therapeutic procedures, laboratory parameters and intraoperative findings have a direct bearing on the outcomes. Objective: to analyze the clinical profile of patients undergoing DCS and determine predictors of morbidity and mortality. Methods: a retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients undergoing DCS following abdominal trauma from November 2015 and December 2021. Data on subjects’ demographics, baseline presentation, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, injury severity scores, laboratory parameters, operative details, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality were assessed. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine potential risk factors for mortality. Results: During the study period, 696 patients underwent trauma laparotomy. Of these, 8.9% (n=62) were DCS, with more than 80% due to penetrating mechanisms. Overall mortality was 59.6%. In the logistic regression stratified by survival, several variables were significantly associated with mortality, including hypotension, and altered mental status at admission, intraoperative cardiorespiratory arrest, need for resuscitative thoracotomy, metabolic acidosis, hyperlactatemia, coagulopathy, fibrinolysis, and severity of the trauma injury scores. Conclusion: DCS may be appropriate in critically injured patients; however, it remains associated with significant morbidity and high mortality, even at specialized trauma care centers. From pre and postoperative clinical and laboratory parameters, it was possible to predict the risk of death in the studied sample.

. Atualmente, este é um dos procedimentos mais realizados em cirurgia. Somente nos Estados Unidos são realizados, anualmente, cerca de 750.000 procedimentos 2 . Atualmente, laparoscopia é "padrão-ouro" na colecistectomia 1,2 . As principais vantagens deste procedimento incluem menos dor pós-operatória, estadia hospitalar mais curta, retorno mais rápido à ingesta de alimentos e ao trabalho e diminuição considerável das complicações sépticas perioperatórias 8 . Apesar disso, os mesmos critérios de profilaxia antibiótica aplicados para a cirurgia convencional são rotineiramente usados na cirurgia laparoscópica, sem que haja evidência clara de sua necessidade [1][2][3][4] . Sabe-se que a incidência de infecção de sítio cirúrgi-co é muito baixa após CVL. A possibilidade de infecção cresce na relação direta com a idade (a maioria dos estudos sinaliza como acima dos 60 anos de idade), infecção ativa (colecistite aguda), presença de obstrução e/ou litíase de via biliar principal, episódios de pancreatite biliar prévios, obesidade e imunossupressão.As infecções cirúrgicas constituem parcela significativa das infecções em pacientes hospitalizados, correspondendo à cerca de 25% [9][10][11][12] . As bactérias são encontradas em 90% das incisões cirúrgicas, sendo crescente seu aumento do início ao fim de um procedimento cirúrgico 12 . Estas infecções são causa importante de morbidade e mortalidade no pós-operatório, além de aumentarem os custos hospitalares 9,10,13,14 . Há muitos motivos para justificar a busca pelo paciente que desenvolverá uma infecção do sítio cirúrgico e tentar prevení-la. Infecções da ferida operatória retardam o retorno às atividades laborativas, aumentam o sofrimento e despendem dinheiro, tempo e recursos hospitalares [14][15][16][17][18] .

Esophageal perforations carry a high potential for morbidity and mortality. The prognosis depends on rapid and precise diagnosis and management. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are very common following the surgical treatment of esophageal lesions. We aimed identify significant risk factors for SSI after surgery for esophageal perforation via an historical cohort study including patients who underwent surgical management of esophageal perforation. The predictive variables were analyzed by bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression. Eighty-one patients were studied during a 10-year period ending in 2004. The mean age was 42.6 years. In 44% of the patients the time interval between the perforation and surgery was up to 6 h and in 30% it was > 24 h. Associated lesions occurred in other cavities; 17% in the chest, 5% in the abdomen, 5% in the extremities, 4% in the spinal column and bone marrow and 2% in the face. There were grade I lesions in eight cases (10%), grade II in 64 cases (79%) and grade III in nine cases (11%). The mean time of surgery procedure was 117.2 min. The mean SSI was 7.99. SSIs occurred in 33 patients (41%). The risk factors for SSI following surgical management of esophageal perforation were: age > or = 50 years, time delay to treatment > 24 h, associated lesion in another cavity and Injury Severity Score > or = 15.

Objective: to demonstrate that the use of the portocath implantation technique without tunneling the catheter is not associated with a higher rate of complications in the short or long term. In addition, we aim to improve the implantation technique of the portocath device, with the presentation of a step-by-step guide for surgeons in training. Methods: this is a retrospective descriptive study, with analytical components. Data were analyzed using information extracted from electronic medical records linked to the National Health Care procedure code between the years 2019-2020. Results: none of the 94 procedures resulted in complications on the day they were performed. Complications were recorded seven days after the procedure in only two patients (2.13%). Intraoperative radioscopy had been performed in both cases. Thirty days afters the procedure, complications were observed in two patients among the remaining 92 (2.17%), both undergoing catheter implantation without tunneling. There were no complications in the six months after portocath implantation in 57.4% of patients and there is no information about the other 42.6%. Conclusion: the portocath insertion technique without tunneling is a safe outpatient procedure, with a low risk of complications, and can be adopted to shorten procedure time and patient discomfort, without functional or safety impairments. There was no association of not tunneling the catheter, laterality of the punctured vein and performing radioscopy in the transoperative period with the rate of complications.

RESUMO: Objetivo: Analisar o uso de antimicrobianos em enfermaria cirúrgica de hospital universitário terciário através de uma auditoria por um dia. Método: Em visita única, aleatória, à enfermaria cirúrgica, dados dos prontuários dos pacientes internados (pré e pós-operatórios) foram analisados. A prescrição de antimicrobianos foi qualificada como profilática, empírica, terapêutica com patógeno conhecido, terapêutica sem patógeno conhecido ou sem base racional, de acordo com critérios pré-estabelecidos. Resultados: Dos 50 pacientes internados, 46 eram pacientes cirúrgicos (N=46). Antibióticos foram prescritos para 13 indivíduos (28,3%). Associação de drogas foi utilizada em sete pacientes (53,8%). Dezenove antibióticos foram prescritos. Oito drogas (42,1%) foram usadas enquadrando-se entre as categorias empírica e sem base racional, quatro em cada. Seis drogas (31,6%) foram utilizadas para tratamento de infecção sem patógeno conhecido, três (15,7%) para tratamento de infecção com patógeno conhecido e duas drogas (10,5%) para profilaxia. Conclusão: Apesar de todas as preocupações com o uso racional dos antimicrobianos, na população estudada quase metade das drogas foi usada sem diagnóstico ou critério definido. A prescrição de antibióticos persiste tema atual. O assunto deve ser encarado com seriedade pelos cirurgiões, que devem saber quando indicar, como indicar e, ainda, quando não indicar (Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2008; 35(4): 216-220). ABSTRACT Background:To analyze the use of antibiotics in the surgical ward of a tertiary university hospital through one day audit. Methods: Data were collected from the charts of hospitalized patients (pre-and postoperative) in a single, random visit in the surgical ward. Antibiotic prescription was classified as prophylactic, empirical, therapeutic intent with a known pathogen, therapeutic intent with an unknown pathogen or without rational basis, according to the preset criteria. Results: From 50 hospitalized patients, 46 were surgical (N=46). Antibiotics were prescribed to 13 subjects (28.3%). Drug association was used in seven patients (53.8%), and nineteen antibiotics were prescribed. Eight drugs (42.1%) were used as empirical or without rational basis, four in each group. Six drugs (31.6%) were used to treat infections with an unknown pathogen, three (15.7%) to treat infections with a know pathogen and two drugs (10.5%) for prophylactic use. Conclusion: Despite all concerns about the rational use of antimicrobials, in the studied population, almost half of the drugs were used without proper diagnosis or definite criterion. Antibiotic prescription is still a current problem. It must be faced with seriousness by surgeons, who must know when to indicate, how to indicate, and yet, when not to indicate.