RESUMEN
Peritoneal carcinosis is considered to be a lethal disease with a very poor prognosis, however cytoreducticve surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) could represent a significant step forward in the therapy of peritoneal cranosis. In contrast to traditional surgical procedures and intravenous chemotherapy, which are moderately effective, CRS and HIPEC are new, personalised interventions, which can extend the lifespan of the patients in the majority of the cases. Moreover, there is a possibility to carry out definitive, curative therapy in a well-selected group of cases. The aim of this article is to review the relevant literature on these procedures, which are novelties in Hungary, and to include our own experience, too.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is the third most frequent nosocomial infection, and accounts for 14-16% of all infections. While the treatment of SSI can be very costly, previous results indicated that triclosan may reduce SSI rate. Therefore, we carried out a prospective randomised trial to further evaluate the effect of triclosan after elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: Seven surgical units in Hungary were involved in a prospective, randomised, multicentric clinical trial to compare triclosan coated (PDS plus®) and uncoated (PDS II®) sutures for abdominal wall closure in elective colorectal surgery. Pre- and perioperative variables were recorded in an online database. The primary aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SSI and the pathogens associated with it, as well as evaluation of additional cost of treatment. RESULTS: 485 patients were randomised. SSI occurred in 47 cases (12.5%), of those 23 (12.23%) from the triclosan group (n = 188) and 24 (12.18%) from the uncoated group (n = 197, p = 0.982). In 13 (27.66%) cases late appearance of SSI was detected, of those 4 patients with triclosan coated suture (8.51%) and 9 patients with uncoated suture (19.15%, p = 0.041). There was no difference between the type of incisions or elective colon and rectal resections in terms of incidence of SSI. CONCLUSION: Beneficial effect of triclosan against Gram positive bacteria could not be confirmed in our study due to the relatively low number of patients with SSI. Furthermore, triclosan did not influence the incidence of SSI due to Gram negative bacteria. SSI rate decreased by 50% compared to our previous study, however, it was regardless of the use of coated or uncoated PDS loop. Finally, operative factors were more important than patient's risk factors in terms of incidence of SSI. In case SSI developed, delayed discharge from hospital as well as special wound care significantly increased overall cost of treatment.