SummaryBackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world.MethodsThis international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231.FindingsBetween Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p<0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p<0·001).InterpretationCountries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication.FundingDFID-MRC-Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trial Development Grant,...

for the TURNBULL-BCN Study Group IMPORTANCE Two-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis seems to provide benefits in terms of postoperative morbidity compared with standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy and further ileostomy reversal in patients operated on for low rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE To compare 30-day postoperative and 1-year follow-up results of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers,

Despite recent improvements in surgical technique, low rectal anastomoses for rectal cancer still carry a not negligible incidence of anastomotic leakage and pelvic related morbidity. The Turnball-Cutait delayed colo-anal anastomosis, also referred as pull-through procedure was introduced with the aim to reduce the surgical anastomotic related complications and overcome the need of diverting ileostomy creation. Recently, this technique regained popularity as a viable option not only as salvage procedure after anastomotic failure or in case of hostile pelvis but also as first choice option in case of low rectal cancer. We report our experience with a personal technique for delayed "high" colo-anal anastomosis and its combination with a minimally invasive approach in order to reduce surgical morbidity, avoid the need for stoma creation and minimize the impact of surgery. Between 2011 and 2015, eight consecutive patients were operated for low rectal cancer by the described technique by a minimally invasive approach. The procedure was successfully completed in all cases. Post-operative major morbidity and 60 days mortality were nihil. There was no need for stoma creation or service laparotomy resulting in a virtually "scarless" surgery. Mean cumulative hospital stay (combining the two stages of the procedure) was 7, 6 days (range 7-9). The proposed technique by combining the advantage of a minimally invasive approach to those of a delayed "high" colo-anal anastomoses can be considered a viable option for the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.

Background. Rectum-preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer has been proposed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with major (mCR) or complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. The purpose of this study was to report on the short-term outcomes of ReSARCh (Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio-and/or Chemotherapy) trial, which is a prospective, multicenter, observational trial that investigated the role of transanal local excision (LE) and watch-and-wait (WW) as integrated approaches after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

Background Colonic J pouch reconstruction has been found to be associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage than straight anastomosis. However, studies on this topic are underpowered and retrospective. This randomized trial evaluated whether the incidence of anastomotic leakage was reduced after colonic J pouch reconstruction compared with straight colorectal anastomosis following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Methods This multicentre RCT included patients with rectal carcinoma who underwent low anterior resection followed by colorectal anastomosis. Patients were assigned randomly to receive a colonic J pouch or straight colorectal anastomosis. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of major anastomotic leakage. The incidence of global (major plus minor) anastomotic leakage and general complications were secondary outcomes. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage were identified by regression analysis. Results Of 457 patients enrolled, 379 were evaluable (colonic J pouch arm 190, straight colorectal arm 189). The incidence of major and global anastomotic leakage, and general complications was 14·2, 19·5 and 34·2 per cent respectively in the colonic J pouch group, and 12·2, 19·0 and 27·0 per cent in the straight colorectal anastomosis group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two arms. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, male sex (odds ratio 1·79, 95 per cent c.i. 1·02 to 3·15; P = 0·042) and high ASA fitness grade (odds ratio 2·06, 1·15 to 3·71; P = 0·015) were independently associated with the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Conclusion Colonic J pouch reconstruction does not reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage and postoperative complications compared with conventional straight colorectal anastomosis. Registration number NCT01110798 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).