Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    British Journal of Surgery

    Subject:
    Surgery
    Publisher:
    BJS Society — Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0007-1323
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    210

    2026

    Volume 113
    Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2025

    Volume 113
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 112
    Supplement 17 (Dec)Supplement 16 (Dec)Supplement 15 (Dec)Supplement 14 (Nov)Supplement 13 (Aug)Supplement 12 (Aug)Supplement 11 (Aug)Supplement 10 (Jun)Supplement 9 (May)Supplement 8 (May)Supplement 7 (May)Supplement 6 (Mar)Supplement 5 (Feb)Supplement 4 (Feb)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2024

    Volume 112
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 111
    Supplement 9 (Nov)Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2023

    Volume 111
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 110
    Supplement 10 (Dec)Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)

    2022

    Volume 110
    Issue 9 (Dec)Issue 8 (Dec)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 109
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jun)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)

    2021

    Volume 109
    Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 108
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Mar)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2020

    Volume 108
    Issue 6 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 107
    Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Sep)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (Apr)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Feb)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2019

    Volume 106
    Supplement 7 (Nov)Supplement 6 (Sep)Supplement 5 (Sep)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2018

    Volume 105
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2017

    Volume 104
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2016

    Volume 103
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Aug)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2015

    Volume 102
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 5 (Apr)Supplement 4 (Mar)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2014

    Volume 102
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 101
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2013

    Volume 100
    Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2012

    Volume 99
    Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2011

    Volume 99
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 98
    Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Apr)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2010

    Volume 98
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 97
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Dec)Supplement 4 (Jun)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2009

    Volume 96
    Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2008

    Volume 95
    Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2007

    Volume 94
    Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 3 (Jul)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2006

    Volume 93
    Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 4
    Issue 14 (Mar)

    2005

    Volume 92
    Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 80
    Issue 3 (Dec)
    Volume 68
    Issue 10 (Dec)
    Volume 67
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 66
    Issue 4 (Dec)
    Volume 64
    Issue 7 (Dec)
    Volume 61
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 60
    Issue 5 (Dec)

    2004

    Volume 91
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2003

    Volume 90
    Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2002

    Volume 89
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Dec)Issue 10 (Nov)Issue 9 (Nov)Issue 8 (Nov)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 88
    Issue 3 (Dec)

    2001

    Volume 88
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2000

    Volume 87
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1999

    Volume 86
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1998

    Volume 85
    Supplement 2 (Jul)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1997

    Volume 84
    Supplement 2 (Jun)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1996

    Volume 83
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1995

    Volume 82
    Supplement 1 (Nov)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1994

    Volume 81
    Supplement 1 (Oct)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1993

    Volume 80
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1992

    Volume 79
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1991

    Volume 78
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1990

    Volume 77
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1989

    Volume 76
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1988

    Volume 75
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1987

    Volume 74
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1986

    Volume 73
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1985

    Volume 72
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1984

    Volume 71
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1983

    Volume 70
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1982

    Volume 69
    Supplement 6 (Dec)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1981

    Volume 68
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1980

    Volume 67
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1979

    Volume 66
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1978

    Volume 65
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 64
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 63
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1975

    Volume 62
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1974

    Volume 61
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1973

    Volume 60
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1972

    Volume 59
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1971

    Volume 58
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1970

    Volume 57
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1969

    Volume 56
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1968

    Volume 55
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1967

    Volume 54
    Issue 13 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1966

    Volume 53
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1965

    Volume 52
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1964

    Volume 51
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1963

    Volume 50
    Issue 227 (Nov)Issue 226 (Sep)Issue 225 (Jul)Issue 224 (May)Issue 223 (Mar)Issue 222 (Jan)

    1962

    Volume 50
    Issue 221 (Nov)Issue 220 (Sep)Issue 219 (Jul)
    Volume 49
    Issue 218 (May)Issue 217 (Mar)

    1961

    Volume 49
    Issue 216 (Dec)Issue 215 (Nov)Issue 214 (Sep)Issue 213 (Jul)
    Volume 48
    Issue 212 (May)Issue 211 (Mar)Issue 210 (Jan)

    1960

    Volume 48
    Issue 209 (Nov)Issue 208 (Sep)Issue 207 (Jul)
    Volume 47
    Issue 206 (May)Issue 205 (Mar)Issue 204 (Jan)

    1959

    Volume 47
    Issue 203 (Nov)Issue 202 (Sep)Issue 201 (Jul)
    Volume 46
    Issue 200 (May)Issue 199 (Mar)Issue 198 (Jan)

    1958

    Volume 46
    Issue 197 (Nov)Issue 196 (Sep)Issue 195 (Jul)
    Volume 45
    Issue 194 (May)Issue 193 (Mar)Issue 192 (Jan)

    1957

    Volume 45
    Issue 191 (Nov)Issue 190 (Sep)Issue 189 (Jul)
    Volume 44
    Issue 188 (May)Issue 187 (Mar)Issue 186 (Jan)

    1956

    Volume 44
    Issue 185 (Nov)Issue 184 (Sep)Issue 183 (Jul)
    Volume 43
    Issue 182 (May)Issue 181 (Mar)Issue 180 (Jan)

    1955

    Volume 43
    Issue 179 (Nov)Issue 178 (Sep)Issue 177 (Jul)
    Volume 42
    Issue 176 (May)Issue 175 (Mar)Issue 174 (Jan)

    1954

    Volume 42
    Issue 173 (Nov)Issue 172 (Sep)Issue 171 (Jul)
    Volume 41
    Issue 170 (May)Issue 169 (Mar)Issue 168 (Jan)

    1953

    Volume 41
    Issue 167 (Nov)Issue 166 (Sep)Issue 165 (Jul)
    Volume 40
    Issue 164 (May)Issue 163 (Mar)Issue 162 (Jan)

    1952

    Volume 40
    Issue 161 (Nov)Issue 160 (Sep)Issue 159 (Jul)
    Volume 39
    Issue 158 (May)Issue 157 (Mar)Issue 156 (Jan)

    1951

    Volume 39
    Issue 155 (Nov)Issue 154 (Sep)Issue 153 (Jul)
    Volume 38
    Issue 152 (Apr)Issue 151 (Jan)

    1950

    Volume 38
    Issue 150 (Oct)Issue 149 (Jul)
    Volume 37
    Issue 148 (Apr)Issue 147 (Jan)

    1949

    Volume 37
    Issue 146 (Oct)Issue 145 (Jul)
    Volume 36
    Issue 144 (Apr)Issue 143 (Jan)

    1948

    Volume 36
    Issue 142 (Oct)Issue 141 (Jul)
    Volume 35
    Issue 140 (Apr)Issue 139 (Jan)

    1947

    Volume 35
    Issue 138 (Oct)Issue 137 (Jul)
    Volume 34
    Issue 136 (Apr)Issue 135 (Jan)

    1946

    Volume 34
    Issue 134 (Oct)Issue 133 (Jul)
    Volume 33
    Issue 132 (Apr)Issue 131 (Jan)

    1945

    Volume 33
    Issue 130 (Oct)Issue 129 (Jul)
    Volume 32
    Issue 128 (Apr)Issue 127 (Jan)

    1944

    Volume 32
    Issue 126 (Oct)Issue 125 (Jul)
    Volume 31
    Issue 124 (Apr)Issue 123 (Jan)

    1943

    Volume 31
    Issue 122 (Oct)Issue 121 (Jul)
    Volume 30
    Issue 120 (Apr)Issue 119 (Jan)

    1942

    Volume 30
    Issue 118 (Oct)Issue 117 (Jul)
    Volume 29
    Issue 116 (Apr)Issue 115 (Jan)

    1941

    Volume 29
    Issue 114 (Oct)Issue 113 (Jul)
    Volume 28
    Issue 112 (Apr)Issue 111 (Jan)

    1940

    Volume 28
    Issue 110 (Oct)Issue 109 (Jul)
    Volume 27
    Issue 108 (Apr)Issue 107 (Jan)

    1939

    Volume 27
    Issue 106 (Oct)Issue 105 (Jul)
    Volume 26
    Issue 104 (Apr)Issue 103 (Jan)

    1938

    Volume 26
    Issue 102 (Oct)Issue 101 (Jul)
    Volume 25
    Issue 100 (Apr)Issue 99 (Jan)

    1937

    Volume 25
    Issue 98 (Oct)Issue 97 (Jul)
    Volume 24
    Issue 96 (Apr)Issue 95 (Jan)

    1936

    Volume 24
    Issue 94 (Oct)Issue 93 (Jul)
    Volume 23
    Issue 92 (Apr)Issue 91 (Jan)

    1935

    Volume 23
    Issue 90 (Oct)Issue 89 (Jul)
    Volume 22
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 88 (Apr)Issue 87 (Jan)

    1934

    Volume 22
    Issue 86 (Oct)Issue 85 (Jul)
    Volume 21
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 84 (Apr)Issue 83 (Jan)

    1933

    Volume 21
    Issue 82 (Oct)Issue 81 (Jul)
    Volume 20
    Supplement 32 (Apr)Supplement 31 (Apr)Supplement 30 (Apr)Supplement 29 (Apr)Issue 80 (Apr)Issue 79 (Jan)

    1932

    Volume 20
    Issue 78 (Oct)Issue 77 (Jul)
    Volume 19
    Issue 76 (Apr)Issue 75 (Jan)

    1931

    Volume 19
    Supplement 28 (Jan)Supplement 27 (Jan)Supplement 26 (Jan)Supplement 25 (Jan)Issue 74 (Oct)Issue 73 (Jul)
    Volume 18
    Supplement 24 (Jan)Supplement 23 (Jan)Supplement 22 (Jan)Supplement 21 (Jan)Issue 72 (Apr)Issue 71 (Jan)

    1930

    Volume 18
    Issue 70 (Oct)Issue 69 (Jul)
    Volume 17
    Supplement 20 (Jan)Supplement 19 (Jan)Issue 68 (Apr)Issue 67 (Jan)

    1929

    Volume 17
    Supplement 18 (Oct)Supplement 17 (Jan)Issue 66 (Oct)Issue 65 (Jul)
    Volume 16
    Supplement 16 (Jan)Supplement 15 (Jan)Supplement 14 (Jan)Supplement 13 (Jul)Issue 64 (Apr)Issue 63 (Jan)

    1928

    Volume 16
    Issue 62 (Oct)Issue 61 (Jul)
    Volume 15
    Issue 60 (Apr)Issue 59 (Jan)

    1927

    Volume 15
    Issue 58 (Oct)Issue 57 (Jul)
    Volume 14
    Supplement 8 (Apr)Supplement 7 (Apr)Supplement 6 (Apr)Supplement 5 (Apr)Issue 56 (Apr)Issue 55 (Jan)

    1926

    Volume 14
    Issue 54 (Oct)Issue 53 (Jul)
    Volume 13
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 52 (Apr)Issue 51 (Jan)

    1925

    Volume 13
    Issue 50 (Oct)Issue 49 (Jul)
    Volume 12
    Issue 48 (Apr)Issue 47 (Jan)

    1924

    Volume 12
    Issue 46 (Oct)Issue 45 (Jul)
    Volume 11
    Issue 44 (Apr)Issue 43 (Jan)

    1923

    Volume 11
    Issue 42 (Oct)Issue 41 (Jul)
    Volume 10
    Issue 40 (Apr)Issue 39 (Jan)

    1922

    Volume 10
    Issue 38 (Oct)Issue 37 (Jul)
    Volume 9
    Issue 36 (Jan)Issue 35 (Jul)

    1921

    Volume 9
    Issue 34 (Jan)Issue 33 (Jul)

    1920

    Volume 8
    Issue 32 (Jan)Issue 31 (Jan)Issue 30 (Jan)Issue 29 (Jul)

    1919

    Volume 7
    Issue 28 (Jan)Issue 27 (Jan)Issue 26 (Jan)Issue 25 (Jul)

    1918

    Volume 6
    Issue 24 (Jan)Issue 23 (Jan)Issue 22 (Jan)Issue 21 (Jul)

    1917

    Volume 5
    Issue 20 (Jan)Issue 19 (Jan)Issue 18 (Jan)Issue 17 (Jul)

    1916

    Volume 4
    Issue 16 (Jan)Issue 15 (Jan)Issue 14 (Jan)Issue 13 (Jan)

    1915

    Volume 3
    Issue 12 (Jan)Issue 11 (Jan)Issue 10 (Jan)Issue 9 (Jan)

    1914

    Volume 2
    Issue 8 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jan)Issue 5 (Jul)

    1913

    Volume 1
    Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jul)

    0020

    Volume 106
    January
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    8 Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infection rates: timing within the hour before incision may not matter

    Morris, Arthur; Roberts, Sally; Grae, Nikki; Frampton, Chris

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.007pmid: N/A

    AimThe impact of surgical prophylaxis timing within the hour before incision on surgical site infection (SSI) rates is undefined. We analysed the SSI rates for timing within the hour before incision to see if there was evidence for an optimal timing to reduce SSIs.MethodWe analysed the SSI rates for hip and knee arthroplasty and cardiac surgery procedures from the prospective Health Quality and Safety Commission’s (HQSC) national Surgical Site Infection Improvement Programme (SSIIP)1,2. Procedures from 2014–2023 were included. Patients were followed for 90-days after surgery and USA CDC NHSN SSI definitions were applied. The SSI rates for 10-min time periods within the hour before incision were compared. Late prophylaxis was defined as given at, or after incision and early as more than 60 min before incision. Uni- and multivariable analysis were performed.ResultsThere were 102 211 procedures; 66 292 (65%) had the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis recorded in minutes versus incision time (48 912 arthroplasties and 17 380 cardiac). 99.8% were clean procedures and cefazolin was the prophylactic antibiotic for 95% of operations. After multivariable analysis the independent risk factors for SSI in orthopaedic surgery were male sex (odds ratio 1.5), BMI (OR up to 2.4 for BMI > 40), surgical risk score (OR 2.9 for score ≥2), and revision procedures (OR 1.9) and for cardiac surgery they were female sex (OR 1.5), BMI (OR up to 3.2 for BMI > 40), type of procedure (bypass procedures OR 2.7), and diabetes (OR 1.6). For cardiac surgery the SSI rates were not associated with prophylaxis timing, for arthroplasties the lowest SSI rate was for prophylaxis given 1–10 min before incision (1.0%) and after multivariable analysis prophylaxis given 51–60 min and >60 min before incision had higher risk for SSI, ORs 2.4 (95% c.i. 1.5–3.9) and 2.1 (95% c.i. 1.1–3.8) respectively. When all procedures were combined the lowest SSI rate was for prophylaxis given 21–30 min before incision, Table:TableTiming of cefazolin prophylaxis and surgical site infection rates in clean orthopaedic and cardiac surgeryTime (mins)No SSISSITotalSSI %OR95% c.i.P valueLate17113717482.121.441.02–2.030.051–10780713979461.751.180.96–1.450.1211–2018 90334219 2451.781.21.03–1.410.02521–3018 54027918 8191.48REF31–4010 11720610 3232.01.351.13–1.620.00141–50450612446302.681.831.48–2.27<0.00151–6024398625253.412.341.83–2.99<0.001Early10203610563.412.351.65–3.34<0.001Total65 043124966 2921.88The SSI rate for prophylaxis given 1–30 min before incision was 1.7%, for prophylaxis >30 min before incision the SSI rate was 2.4% (OR 1.5, 95% c.i. 1.3–1.7, P < 0.001). REF- Reference group (the group that the other times were compared to).ConclusionThe SSI rates for prophylaxis given >30 min before surgery appear higher than prophylaxis given within 30 min of incision. However, combination of all data was needed to show this. More outcome data are required before firm recommendations can be made for fine tuning of prophylaxis within the hour before incision. The finding may not be applicable to non-clean procedures and for non-cefazolin prophylaxis.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    27 Incisional prophylactic wound irrigation with aqueous povidone iodine or chlorhexidine for prevention of surgical site infection in elective abdominal surgery

    Groenen, Hannah; Bontekoning, Nathan; Hannink, Gerjon; Hollman, Marcus W; de Jonge, Stijn W; Boermeester, Marja A; Wolfhagen, Niels

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.011pmid: N/A

    BackgroundIncisional prophylactic intra-operative wound irrigation (pIOWI) with an aqueous antiseptic solution effectively reduces surgical site infections (SSIs); however, data on the use of aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate are limited and no direct comparisons to aqueous povidone iodine exist. Recognising the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate in skin antisepsis, we investigated its use as an aqueous solution for pIOWI, hypothesising it might offer similar advantages. We therefore compare the efficacy of aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate with aqueous povidone iodine for incisional pIOWI in prevention SSI in elective abdominal surgery.MethodsA post hoc analysis of data from the randomised controlled EPO2CH trial was conducted including 699 patients to assess the effect of aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate compared to aqueous povidone iodine for incisional pIOWI on the incidence of SSI. Multiple imputation with chained equations were used to impute missing values. The association between type of irrigation and SSI was assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic regression.FindingsWeighted regression analysis showed a lower SSI rate [−3.03%, 95% c.i. −7.04 to 0.98] for pIOWI with aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (4.05%) versus aqueous povidone iodine (7.08%) (number needed to benefit 33.0 (NNTH 102.0 to ∞ to NNTB 14.2). There was a lower SSI rate [−3.65%, 95% c.i. −7.47 to 0.17] for superficial and a higher SSI rate [0.62%, 95% c.i. −0.61 to 1.85] for deep SSIs for aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate compared to aqueous povidone iodine.InterpretationWhile SSIs are lower for incisional pIOWI with aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate than with aqueous povidone iodine, the results are not statistically significant, with wide confidence intervals, indicating uncertainty. Based on these results, we recommend the use of aqueous povidone iodine for pIOWI and advise caution when considering aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate, given concerns about its potential to induce resistance and its limited clinical data.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    34 Has the Port-a-Germ changed the outcome of our cultures in our intra-abdominal infection?

    Membrilla-Fernández, Estela; Velasquez Orozco, Fernando; Lorente Poch, Leyre; González-Castillo, Ana María; Pelegrina-Manzano, Amalia; Cremona, Simone; Manzo, Elena; De Miguel Palacio, Maite; Gómez-Zorrilla, Silvia Inés; Esteban Cuco, Sandra

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi:

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    20 Origins of microorganisms responsible for surgical site infection following surgery for intestinal failure

    Dean, Harry; Kinross, James; Tozer, Phil; Wilson, Ana; Vaizey, Carolynne; Hoyles, Lesley

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.006pmid: N/A

    AimSurgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication following colorectal surgery with the incidence following surgery for intestinal failure (IF) exceeding 50%. SSI is associated with a range of patient morbidity and a 200% increase in associated costs. The role of individual strains of bacteria in the pathogenesis of SSI remains uncertain. Next-generation whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and detailed bioinformatic analyses allow advanced microbial tracking with strain-level detail. A retrospective analysis in our centre previously identified Enterococcus faecium (EF), Escherichia coli (EC) and Staphylococcus aureus (SA) as the most frequent organisms isolated from SSI samples following surgery for IF. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that SSI following surgery for IF results from strains of EF, EC and SA originating from the patient’s commensal microbiota.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational, cohort study of adult patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery for treatment of IF or enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) at a single quaternary referral centre between January and October 2022. Swabs were collected from each patient’s nose, mouth, skin, fistula, stoma and vascular access device preoperatively. An intraoperative fascial swab was collected prior to skin closure. Patients were followed assiduously for the development of SSI, diagnosed according to the Centre for Disease Control criteria. Samples were cultured for EF, EC and SA based on presumptive identification with mass spectrometry. Isolates were cryogenically frozen and processed for Illumina sequencing. Bioinformatic analysis included identification of genes predicted to encode virulence factors (VF) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes.ResultsTwenty-one patients were recruited with a median age of 51.5. The most frequent aetiology of IF was surgical complications (9/21) followed by inflammatory bowel disease (7/21). 71% had an ECF and 14% underwent a concomitant abdominal wall reconstruction. The SSI rate was 71%. 161 swabs were collected from which 49 pure isolates were recovered for sequencing. Species identification by WGS was superior to laboratory mass spectrometry with 6 of the 49 pure isolates confirmed as species other than EF, EC or SA on species-level (kmer-based) analysis. In three patients, identical strains of EC and EF were found preoperatively across anatomical sites. However, no exact matches were found between patients or between preoperative, intraoperative or infective strains.EC SSI isolates were predicted to encode 48% more VFs than those recovered from preoperative samples (mean 35.4 versus 24.0 per isolate). The mean number of AMR genes predicted from the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative isolates was 41, 29 and 43, respectively. EC isolates were predicted to encode the greatest number of AMR genes on average (58), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (37), Enterococcus faecalis (23), SA (20) and EF (15).ConclusionsThis is the most detailed analysis of SSI organisms following gastrointestinal surgery to date. Strains of EC, EF, SA and other species that are genetically distinct from patient’s commensal organisms emerge during infection of the surgical site. These strains display enhanced virulence and AMR potential. WGS allows superior characterisation of pathogenic strains involved in SSI compared to standard laboratory techniques.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    19 Gelatin-functionalised hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels with antimicrobial peptides for chronic wound treatment

    Petit, N; Gomes, Ana; Gomes, Paula; Browne, S

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.019pmid: N/A

    AimChronic wounds including diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) develop due to impaired healing mechanisms associated with chronic hyperglycaemia, leading to dysregulated inflammatory and angiogenic processes. This condition makes DFUs prone to chronicity and bacterial infection. This study aimed to develop a multifunctional hyaluronic acid (HyA)-based hydrogel to enhance cellular adhesion and provide localised antimicrobial activity to accelerate the healing of DFUs.MethodsHyA was chemically modified with acrylate groups (AcHyA) and crosslinked with polyethylene glycol (PEG) dithiol to form stable hydrogels1. Thiolated gelatin was conjugated to the AcHyA (AcHyA-G) to enhance cell adhesion and bioactivity, while the cysteine-terminated peptide PP4-3.1 was incorporated (AcHyA-G-PP4-3.1) for its antimicrobial properties2. The biophysical properties (storage modulus, swelling behaviour, degradation kinetics, and molecular diffusion) of the HyA hydrogels as a function of gelatin concentration were assessed, as well as the response of human dermal fibroblasts (hDFs) and iPSC-derived endothelial cells (iECs). The antimicrobial efficacy of AMP-conjugated AcHyA was assessed against Staphylococcus aureus.ResultsThe biophysical characterisation of AcHyA-G hydrogels revealed rapid gelation, elastic properties, a uniform mesh size, and consistent molecular diffusion across all formulations. Additionally, the presence of gelatin improved stability without altering the hydrogel’s degradation profile. AcHyA-G hydrogels effectively supported the adhesion and spreading of key wound repair cells (HDFs and iECs), with 0.5% gelatin identified as the optimal concentration. Furthermore, incorporating the AMP conferred bactericidal activity against S. aureus, the most prevalent bacteria found in DFU.ConclusionThe AcHyA hydrogels functionalised with gelatin and AMPs demonstrate promising potential as multifunctional wound dressings for DFUs. These hydrogels provide structural support, enhanced bioactivity, and localised antimicrobial effect. Future research will focus on evaluating gelatin and AMP-functionalised AcHyA hydrogels in pre-clinical wound models to evaluate their effectiveness and long-term potential in promoting the healing of chronic wounds.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    21 The burden of surgical site infection following colorectal surgery in England: a population-based analysis using linked hospital and primary care data sets

    Dean, Harry; Deputy, Mohammed; Drami, Ioanna; Aylin, Paul; Bottle, Alex; Kinross, James; Tozer, Phil; Wilson, Ana; Vaizey, Carolynne; Faiz, Omar

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.009pmid: N/A

    AimColorectal surgery is the highest contributor of surgical site infection (SSI) of any surgical specialty in England. SSI is an important metric for patient safety, yet there is significant variability in its reported incidence following colorectal surgery. National data is offered voluntarily and only includes diagnoses made in hospital. Enhanced recovery programmes mean that SSI frequently presents in primary care after discharge, meaning the true incidence is likely to be underestimated by hospital data alone. Using routinely collected data to estimate SSI is a potential alternative to resource intensive surveillance strategies. Comprehensive data regarding the frequency, distribution and risk factors for SSI may improve the recognition of at-risk groups and enable more targeted and effective prevention strategies.MethodsA cohort of adult patients undergoing elective or emergency colorectal resection in England between 2014 and 2019 was identified. Patients were included from linked databases combining Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from NHS hospitals and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data from GP practices. Cases were stratified according to disease, operative and patient factors. The frequency of SSI was analysed using MedCodes or ICD-10 codes for wound infection within 30 days of surgery. A generalised estimating equation with clustering by GP practice was used to determine risk factors for SSI.Results59 376 patients were included in the final analysis, with a median age of 67; 51.3% were male. 59.6% of operations were open procedures and 67.3% of cases were elective. The commonest procedures were rectal/anterior resection (39%) and right hemicolectomy (38%). The most frequent indication for surgery was cancer (55%).The overall SSI rate was 8.3%, strikingly similar to that reported by the UK government (8.7%) over this time period1. 3770 (76.3%) SSIs were diagnosed in hospital and 1168 (23.7%) were diagnosed in the community. Patients who developed an SSI had a significantly longer hospital stay (12 versus 8 days; P < 0.001). Only 23.5% of patients diagnosed with SSI in primary care required readmission to hospital. On regression modelling, SSI was associated with smoking (OR 1.14, 95%c.i. 1.07–1.22), diabetes (OR 1.30, 95%c.i. 1.19–1.41) and diverticular disease (OR 1.47, 95%c.i. 1.33–1.66; all P < 0.001). Laparoscopic approach (OR 0.63, 95%c.i. 0.59–0.67; P < 0.001) and elective admission (OR 0.90, 95%c.i. 0.84–0.96; P = 0.002) were protective.ConclusionThis study represents the largest national analysis of SSI incidence following colorectal surgery across primary and secondary care to date. With the necessary automation and data flows, existing linked population databases could provide consistent feedback on SSI incidence. This could form the basis of a coordinated local and national surveillance programme for colorectal SSI. Further validation studies are needed to explore differences in SSI recording between primary and secondary care, as well as following elective and emergency surgery.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    24 Groin surgical site infection in vascular surgery with intradermal suture or metallic stapling skin closure: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

    González-sagredo, Albert; López García, Paula; Iborra, Elena; Videla, Sebastian

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.014pmid: N/A

    IntroductionSurgical site infection is one of the most frightening complications in vascular surgery, due to its high morbimortality. There are retrospective studies showing that intradermal sutures might be associated with lower infection rates, compared to staples. To our knowledge, no multicenter clinical trial has been published on this topic. The primary objective of the study is to assess if skin closure with intradermal sutures is associated with lower surgical site infection incidence, compared to staples, at 28 days after surgery.MethodsPragmatic open-label parallel-group multicenter randomized clinical trial. The study received the approval of the Ethics Committee (PR047/22) and the protocol was published in Medicine®. Patients undergoing arterial surgery through a femoral approach were randomized (1:1 ratio) to intradermal suture (experimental group) or metallic staples (control group). The sample size was 224 patients, assuming 80% power, 5% alfa error and 10% dropout. The statistical analysis was performed by intention-to-treat, with R® 4.1.0 Windows® (Core [2020]). The main variable was evaluated by Chi-square test and was estimated the relative risk and its confidence interval of 95%.ResultsA total of 113 patients were randomized to the control group and 112 to the experimental group. There were no significant differences regarding their basal characteristics. The cumulative incidence of surgical site infection at 28 days was of 5.3% (6/113, IC95%: 2.5–11.1) in the control group and 7.1% (8/112, IC95%: 3.7–13.5) in the experimental group (RR 1.35, IC95%: [0.48–3.75]; P-valor = 0.769).ConclusionIntradermal suture is not associated with a reduction in surgical site infection incidence for femoral approach compared to metallic staples.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    17 Artificial intelligence for the detection of surgical site infection on wound images. A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Bontekoning, Nathan; Huisman, Hiske; Ali, Mahsoem; Groenen, Hannah; Jamaludin, Faridi; Wolfhagen, Niels; de Jonge, Stijn W; Kazemier, Geert; Geerts, Bart Franciscus; Boermeester, Marja A

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.005pmid:

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    40 Severe scrotal soft-tissue infection: a rare case of complicated inguinal hernia with colonic perforation

    Suarez Enriquez, Ana Belen; Serrano, Esteban Diaz; Sudol, Silvia Bilas; Fondevila Campo, Constantino; Prieto Nieto, Isabel

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.028pmid: N/A

    BackgroundInguinal hernias are a common surgical condition, typically presenting with reducible abdominal contents. The incarceration or strangulation of bowel segments within the hernia sac can lead to serious complications, including bowel perforation. Caecal perforation in an inguinal hernia is an exceptionally rare presentation, often associated with delayed diagnosis and high morbidity. This clinical case highlights the diagnostic and surgical challenges of a perforated cecum and ascending colon in an inguinal hernia, emphasizing the importance of early recognition, the different clinical presentation compared to intra-abdominal perforations and prompt intervention in preventing life-threatening complications.Case Report57-year-old man, with a medical history of Ebstein anomaly with atrial septal defect corrected in childhood. Multiple admissions for decompensated heart failure, the last 3 with cardiogenic shock. He required a heart transplant in 2021, and since then is treated with Tacrolimus. He attended the Emergency Department presenting with increasing pain in the last 10 days of a previously asymptomatic right inguinoscrotal hernia, associated with foul-smelling exudate from the scrotal skin. The physical examination showed an incarcerated large right inguinoscrotal hernia complicated with a skin fistula pouring faecal content and a severe scrotal soft-tissue infection. Upon examination there was no abdominal tenderness. Blood tests showed leucocytosis and elevated C-reactive Protein. A CT-scan showed an indirect inguinoscrotal hernia complicated with ischemic and perforated intestinal content and exteriorized through a large skin defect. Emergency laparotomy was performed, revealing cecum and ascending colon herniation that presented 2 perforations within the hernia sac, which had faecal content that had fistulized to the scrotal skin. There was also localized fasciitis and right testicular necrosis, but no peritonitis or other intra-abdominal alterations were found. Right hemicolectomy with ileocolic anastomosis, hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh, scrotal debridement and right orchiectomy was performed. The first 4 postoperative days required management in the ICU due to renal impairment and a single episode of haematochezia, treated with transfusion of 2 units of RBC, but no vasopressors were required and he did not present other complications. The patient was discharged on the 10th postoperative day and did not require new hospital admissions.Educational HighlightsCecal and ascending colon perforation within an inguinal hernia is an extremely rare. An extrabdominal and fistulised perforation, can present a subacute and less severe clinical course. Early recognition, as well as prompt surgical intervention are essential to prevent life-threatening complications such as sepsis, shock, and organ failure. In patients with preexisting comorbidities, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapy, timely intervention is crucial to improving outcomes.This case demonstrates the rare occurrence of cecal perforation within an inguinal hernia, which present unique diagnostic and treatment challenges.It highlights the importance of early recognition and intervention, especially in patients with complex medical histories.Additionally, it underscores the value of a multidisciplinary approach in managing complicated cases that involve abdominal and extra-abdominal infections, hernia and scrotal complications.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    12 Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 for the detection of surgical site infections from electronic health records after colorectal surgery: a pilot diagnostic study

    Casanova-Portolés, Daniel; Sancho, Joan; Membrilla, Estela; Rubiés, Carles; Vásquez, Laura M; Pujol, Miquel; Badia, Josep M

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf159.010pmid: N/A

    IntroductionSurveillance of surgical site infection (SSI) relies on manual methods that are time-consuming and prone to subjectivity. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT for detecting SSI from electronic health records after colorectal surgery via comparison with the results of a nationwide surveillance programme.MethodsThis pilot, retrospective, multicentre analysis included 122 patients who underwent colorectal surgery. Patient records were reviewed by both manual surveillance and ChatGPT, which was tasked with identifying SSI and categorizing them as superficial, deep, or organ-space infections. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined the model’s diagnostic performance.ResultsChatGPT achieved a sensitivity of 100%, correctly identifying all SSIs detected by manual methods. The specificity was 54%, indicating the presence of false positives. The PPV was 67%, and the NPV was 100%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.77, indicating good overall accuracy for distinguishing between SSI and non-SSI cases. Minor differences in outcomes were observed between colon and rectal surgeries, as well as between the hospitals participating in the study.ConclusionsChatGPT shows high sensitivity and good overall accuracy for detecting SSI. It appears to be a useful tool for initial screenings and for reducing manual review workload. The moderate specificity suggests a need for further refinement to reduce the rate of false positives. The integration of ChatGPT alongside electronic medical records, antibiotic consumption and imaging data results for real-time analysis may further improve the surveillance of SSI

    Showing 1 to 10 of 29 Articles

    Previous123Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    Annals of SurgeryPlastic and Reconstructive SurgeryJAMA SurgerySurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional TechniquesWorld Journal of SurgeryAnnals of Plastic SurgeryLangenbeck's Archives of SurgeryAesthetic Plastic SurgeryFacial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic MedicineMicrosurgery
    10.1093/bjs/znaf159.016
    pmid:
    N/A
    IntroductionThe decision on appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy is complex and multifactorial, depending on the pathogenic microorganisms and the baseline characteristics of the patients. Then has the transport medium used to send our cultures changed the results of the flora in intra-abdominal infection?Material and MethodsOne of the theories regarding changes in the transport medium is that Enterococcus spp. is overestimated when using blood culture medium. It is a single-center observational study that prospectively included consecutive cases of secondary peritonitis from at least two quadrants, collecting epidemiological and microbiological data. Data from the peritonitis database has been collected since 2010 until our days. In 2018, the culture medium was changed, and instead of sending peritoneal fluid cultures in blood culture bottles, they were sent in the Portagerm (PORT-F) transport medium.ResultsThe reference laboratory in Catalonia provides the hospital’s overall results regarding the microbiological findings of peritoneal fluid and bile fluid. In 2017, 82 positive cultures of peritoneal and/or bile fluid for Enterococcus spp. were reported, of which 58 patients had E. faecium. In 2022, 66 patients tested positive for Enterococcus, with 38 cases of E. faecium. In 2023, 55 patients presented with Enterococcus spp., and 21 with E. faecium. From the secondary peritonitis database between 2010 to 2017, 153 out of 629 patients (24%) had Enterococcus. This percentage has been decreasing in subsequent years, from 2018 to 2020.910 patients with secondary peritonitis, 640 (70%) community (CP) and 270 (30%) nosocomial (PN). 61% were men with a median age of 52 + 20 years (10–101). The most common origin of CP was appendicular (38%), followed by colon (23%) and gastroduodenal (23%), and of NP the colon (59%) and small intestine (20%). A sample was taken for culture in 98% of patients.ConclusionsEmpirical antibiotic treatments are decided based on the overall results of each center, and adjustment policies are defined over the years. Small changes in the way samples are processed can alter the results of microorganisms in each of our centers. Understanding how samples are processed can help avoid erroneous conclusions.
    N/A
    AimSurgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common post-operative complications and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to provide an overview of whether artificial intelligence can accurately identify a surgical site infection on postoperative wound images.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, ArXiv and ACM Digital Library databases were searched up to November 12th 2024, and eligible studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed in the different studies using Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A systematic review was conducted by combining data from the separate trials and analysing multiple area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values. A meta-analysis to combine different AUC values was performed.ResultsWe identified 12 eligible studies for inclusion. Out of 15 941 images from nine different surgical subspecialties, 1995 (12.5%) images were suspected for SSI. SSI labelling was either done by physical exam by a general practitioner or photographic data was judged by clinical experts. All included studies utilized both traditional machine learning or deep learning approaches. Overall risk of bias varied from low to high. Nine studies were found eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis and analysis of pooled data from the nine included studies demonstrated a combined AUC of 0.92 (95% c.i. 0.68–0.99).ConclusionThe use of AI models for SSI detection on images could prove beneficial in automating post-discharge surgical wound follow-up, possibly reducing the need for face to face evaluation and, in consequence, costs. However, current models do not yet meet the performance standard on sensitivity needed for them to be useful in postoperative wound monitoring. In this context, international data sharing and collaboration is key, both to increase generalizability and to improve model robustness with more images. Moreover, future studies should strive to incorporate external validation to evaluate model performance.