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 (Mar)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
    17 Self-fixing scaffold membrane prevents postoperative adhesion by scavenging ROS production

    Li, Sicheng; Liu, Ye; Huang, Jinjian; Wu, Xiuwen; Ren, Jianan

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.023pmid: N/A

    AimThis study focuses on the investigation of formation mechanism and prevention technologies for postoperative abdominal adhesions by combining bioengineering technology with the target therapy on abdominal adhesion mechanism.MethodsA tissue engineering anti-adhesion membrane (SC-Xg) was prepared by cross-linking xanthan gum (Xg) with sodium citrate (SC) through dehydration condensation reaction for in vivo implantation to prevent postoperative abdominal adhesions. The physicochemical properties of SC-Xg were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, rheometry, and swelling experiments to screen for suitable material formula ratios. Moreover, the biocompatibility of SC-Xg was assessed by co-culture with cells and fluorescence staining of live/dead cells. Through cellular experiments, we explored the possible mechanisms of sodium citrate inhibition of oxidative stress. Based on in vivo implantation of SC-XG membrane to mouse IBM, the safety and efficacy of SC-Xg in preventing postoperative abdominal adhesions were further confirmed using histopathological staining and ELISA assays.ResultsWe developed a sodium citrate-based cross-linked xanthan gum tissue engineering membrane (SC-Xg) through a dehydration condensation reaction for the prevention of abdominal adhesion formation after abdominal surgery. The mechanical properties of xanthan gum were optimized by using different amount of sodium citrate for cross-linking. The SC-XG membrane showed the antioxidant properties, good self-fixation ability, biocompatibility, and biodegradability, and was easy to prepare for applications. In vitro and in vivo experiments confirmed the clinical translational potential of SC-Xg by shielding the surgical site, inhibiting oxidative stress and inflammatory response by activating Nrf2, and significantly reducing adhesion formation.ConclusionsSC-Xg membrance inhibits oxidative stress in the injured peritoneum and prevents the formation of adhesions.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    31 Concerning a case: innovative approach to managing sepsis from an infected breast prosthesis

    Blay, Lidia; Malagón, Paloma; Vilà, Jordi; Aranda, Daniel; Pascual, Iciar; Claret, Rosa; Cardona, Pere Joan; Carrasco, Cristian; Humaran, Daniel; Julián, Joan Francesc

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.027pmid: N/A

    We present a 45-year-old patient with right breast neoplasia and BRCA2 genetic mutation. She is discussed in a multidisciplinary breast cancer committee and was considered to be a candidate for bilateral skin and nipple sparing mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. The surgery was performed endoscopically through lateral incisions of 3.5 cm in the axillary midline. During surgery, the presence of retroareolar tumor cells was found, requiring a new retroareolar resection to ensure the anterior margin and to maintain the nipple-areola complex. The immediate postoperative course was favorable and the patient was discharged after 48 hours. In outpatient follow-ups, drainage is monitored, and necrotic tissue is observed exclusively in the nipple during ambulatory check-ups, with satisfactory progress. At 15 days drainage is removed in the right breast, but the patient reconsults at 48 hours due to pain in the breast, erythema in the drainage orifice and slight increase in volume in the lower outer quadrant and center of the breast. Drainage is performed by puncture and purulent material is analized and the patient is admitted with intravenous antibiotherapy. During 5 days the patient presented progressive worsening with increased erythema, pain, fever and sepsis in analytical (>20 000 leukocytes and CRP >400 mg/l) so it is proposed to explant the prosthesis. The patient refuses to have the prosthesis removed and requests conservative management, refusing the explant even with the vital risk involved. In front of a competent patient, an attempt of ‘prosthesis conservative’ management was decided, performing surgery with intense washing of the mastectomy cavity, Friedrich of necrotic plaque with direct suture and prosthesis placement with previous drainage, washed with betadine, prontosan and antibiotherapy + sensitive antifungals according to initial antibiogram. She was hospitalized for 10 days with antibiotics and endovenous antifungal well tolerated, with progressive improvement and discharge with oral antibiotics and control in external consultations. The patient maintains good evolution with normalization of her septic status and good aesthetic result. The pathological anatomy showed free surgical margins.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    32 Necrotising breast fasciitis due to empyema necessitatis

    De Castro, Rosa Claret; Clavell, Arantxa; Cladellas, Esther; Blay, Lidia; Peñafiel, Sebastian; Garcia, Samuel; Herraiz, Alba; Hugué, Alex; López-de Castro, Pedro; Julian, Joan Francesc

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.028pmid: N/A

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    22 The incidence of perioperative hypothermia and the effect of normothermia measures in the era of new surgical approaches

    Guirao, Xavier; Luna, Alexis; Pujol, Gemma; Garcia-Bartolo, Carolina; Gasulla, Anna; Ribot, Laia; Campos, Mariana; Martos, Miriam; de Verdonces, Leticia; Bueno, Mercedes

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.007pmid: N/A

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    43 A challenging management of a Y graft mycotic pseudoaneurysm in a simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant recipient

    Geropoulos, Georgios; Colucci, Nicola; Amin, Irum; Russell, Neil; Kosmoliapsis, Vasilis

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.038pmid: N/A

    IntroductionThe incidence of allograft artery mycotic pseudoaneurysms after kidney and pancreas transplantation is less than 1%. Natural history of vascular mycotic aneurysms is characterized by their tendency to rupture causing major bleeding, leading to graft loss and increased mortality rate.Case ReportA 45-years old patient was transferred to the intensive care unit of our hospital following a massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding, pyrexia and hemodynamic compromise. Medical background included a simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPK) back in 2020, followed by rejection and repeated pancreatic transplant (PTA) alone one year after. Abdominal computerized tomography imaging showed a thrombosed graft superior mesenteric artery, with concomitant active bleeding from the splenic limb of the arterial Y graft, due to a mycotic pseudoaneurysm ruptured into the bowel. The bleeding was initially managed with an endovascular stenting of the right common iliac artery, determining an inevitable graft ischemia. Blood cultures isolated Bacteroides sp. so, the patient was started on board spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin/tazobactam) based on the culture sensitivities. Following resuscitation, the patient went to theatre two days after for a graft pancreatectomy, including the aneurysmal Y graft. An iliac artery vascular repair was then performed. The endovascular stent was removed during the procedure. The cultures of the pancreatic graft, vessels and stent were positive for enterococcus faecium, leading to adding vancomycin to the already existed antibiotic regimen. The patient received in total four weeks of intravenous and oral antibiotics. His postoperative course was uneventful and was discharged on the 14th postoperative day.Educational HighlightsPancreatic graft arterial pseudoaneurysms is an uncommon as well as quite serious complication following a combined kidney and pancreas transplantation. Initial management of pseudoaneurysms should rely on early diagnosis while endovascular repair could be an acceptable bridging therapy along with long term antibiotics. Surgical management involve removing the infected vessels and perform arterial reconstruction aiming preservation of the graft. However, in some cases graft pancretectomy is deemed necessary to control the ongoing resistant sepsis or findings of ischemic graft.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    44 Gram stain and intraabdominal infection: narrative revision

    Vázquez, Alba Manuel; Pérez, Inés Rubio; Badía Pérez, Josep María; Sánchez, Carmen González; Garriga, Xavier Guirao

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.031pmid: N/A

    AimOur aim is to determine whether Gram staining can confirm the presence of pathogens in an intra-abdominal infection (IAI), identify filamentous forms or provide information for the initiation of antibiotic treatment and/or drainage of a collection. It also intended to assess whether the Gram stain result may support the diagnosis of primary or secondary peritonitis.MethodsA narrative literature review was conducted. Articles published in English or Spanish since 1990 were included. Experimental studies, peritoneal dialysis and liver cirrhosis were excluded. SINTAXIS: ‘Intraabdominal Infections’ (diverticulitis, colonic; Appendicitis; cholecystitis, acute; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Intestinal Perforation; secondary peritonitis; Abdominal Abscess; Postoperative complications) AND (‘Gentian Violet’ OR ‘Gram's stain).ResultsForty papers were found and eight were selected for review (7 retrospective and 1 prospective observational studies). The usefulness of Gram staining was discussed in acute cholecystitis, liver abscess, secondary peritonitis, blood stream infections and soft tissue infections, but no uniform criteria were found in the patients included. According to studies, we cannot conclude that Gram stain is useful in IAI. It does not seem to predict the outcome of cultures or influence the duration and selection of antimicrobial therapy, whereas it may be slightly more useful for fungi due to its higher negative predictive value. Gram stain positivity seems to mean an increased risk of SSI in certain pathologies and closer outpatient monitoring could be applied in these cases. Microbiological characterization of the Gram stain in certain pathologies (soft tissue infection, blood stream infection) may point to an intra-abdominal origin of the primary infection.ConclusionsConsidering the heterogeneity of the studies reviewed, no clear conclusions can be drawn about the usefulness of Gram staining in IAI.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    25 Hepatic abscess secondary to migration of fish bone impaction from the duodenum: a challenging management

    Vera, Blanca Monje; Asensio, Luis; Recarte, Maria; Del Castillo, Federico; Suarez, Belen; Fondevila, Constantino; Rubio-Perez, Ines

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.036pmid: N/A

    IntroductionForeign body ingestion is a common condition. Over 80% of cases are accidental and even unnoticed by the patient, 10–20% need endoscopic treatment for extraction, and only 1% of cases need surgical intervention. There is a wide range of possibilities and complications in the gastrointestinal tract related to foreign body impaction. A very uncommon complication is perforation of bowel with migration of the foreign body and underlying insidious infection. These situations usually require a surgical approach to resolve the problem. We present the case of a patient with a liver abscess secondary to fishbone impaction in the duodenum with migration into the liver.Case ReportA 79-year-old male with a medical history of duodenal ulcer, hiatal hernia, and benign prostatic hyperplasia arrived to the Emergency Department (ED) with shortness of breath, fever and general malaise. On laboratory exams he presented leukocytosis and high C reactive protein (CRP). A simple Chest X-ray reported pleural effusion. Blood cultures informed of a S. intermedius. As his first diagnostic approach was pneumonia, he was admitted to the Pneumology Department. During admission, a thoraco-abdominal CT scan was performed. It informed of a liver abscess (2.5 × 2.3 cm) with a foreign body of linear morphology in the middle, probably a fishbone. This foreign body had one end located in the first duodenal portion and the other end at the edge of the hepatic abscess (segment IV), close to the falciform ligament. The patient was finally diagnosed with a liver abscess with pleural effusion in the infectious context. He received empirical antibiotic treatment and conservative management. After clinical improvement, the patient was discharged. However, he returned to the ED again due to a poor general condition. An abdominal CT scan was performed which reported enlargement of the liver abscess, with increased inflammation around it. Gastroenterologists performed an endoscopy to try and remove the fishbone, but it was unsuccessful due to scar tissue blocking access. Percutaneous drainage of the abscess was performed to achieve source control with the isolation in cultures of the same S. intermedius as in blood. The patient received targeted antibiotic treatment after source control and he was scheduled for elective surgery. The operative findings described a fibrous tract leading from the duodenum to the liver: it was opened, and the fishbone removed. The tract was resected, and the duodenal orifice was closed. The patient recovered uneventfully.Educational HighlightsThe range of clinical manifestations of foreign body impaction can be acute or insidious. In this case, a high level of suspicion was needed for diagnosis, as symptoms were atypical and initially ruled as pneumonia. It is important to remember that source control is the main objective when treating abdominal infections. If conservative management is not effective, optimization of the patient and medical treatment to reduce inflammation can be a wise strategy before surgery. The optimal treatment of abdominal foreign bodies is a challenging condition and treatment must be tailored to each patient and presentation.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    18 iNPWT versus standard dressing on groin surgical incisions after revascularization surgery: PICO-vasc randomised trial

    Lorenzo, Laura Rodriguez; Cañas, Elena Gonzalez; Madrazo Gonzalez, Zoilo; Salto, Eduardo Arrea; Gimenez Gaibar, Antonio; Radua, Jana Merino

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.004pmid: N/A

    ObjectiveThis study assessed the potential benefit of applying incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in patients undergoing revascularisation due to peripheral arterial disease.DesignA prospective, randomised, controlled trial was conducted comparing the inguinal application of iNPWT versus standard surgical dressing. Patients were enrolled from February, 2021 to November, 2022.MethodsOne hundred and thirty-three groin incisions were randomised (66 intervention group, 67 control group). Randomisation sequence was carried out by permuted blocks and allocation assigned by opening opaque envelopes once the revascularisation procedure finished. Wound healing and complication rates were assessed at postoperative days 5, 14 and 30. The primary and secondary endpoints were: 30-day postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) and surgical site occurrence (SSO) rates, defined as surgical wound complication other than SSI. Postoperative SSI was defined according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. SSO included: wound dehiscence, seroma or lymphocele, haematoma, and lymphorrhagia. The study was registered at ClinicalTrails.gov database (NCT04840576) and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.ResultsiNPWT did not alter the 30-day inguinal SSI and SSO rates (16.7% versus 20.9%, P = 0.53 and 37.9% versus 44.8%, P = 0.42, respectively). The use of iNPWT showed a reduction in early-SSO rate (19.7% versus 35.8%, RR 1.45, 95% c.i. 1.047–2.013), wound dehiscence (0% versus 6%, P = 0.044) and postoperative seroma (4.6% versus 19.4%, P = 0.014).ConclusionInguinal postoperative use of iNPWT proved to be an effective preventive tool, with significant reductions in early-SSO rate, wound dehiscence, seroma, but did not alter the 30-day SSI and SSO rates.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    14 Conventional versus instillation NPWT in the treatment of surgical site infections—an interim analysis of ongoing prospective trial

    Popivanov, Georgi; Penchev, D; Chipeva, S; Stefanov, D; Konaktchieva, M; Kjossev, K; Paycheva, Ts; Dimitrov, P; Marangozov, S; Mutafchiyski, V

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.020pmid: N/A

    AimApproximately 9 million HAIs occur yearly worldwide or 5–15% of all admissions. According to a recent systematic review the cumulative incidence of SSIs is 11%. According to the Middle East Expert Forum, NPWT with instillation (NPWTi) offers the following benefits over the conventional NPWT ‘reduction in bioburden, decreased time to wound closure, reduced infection rates, decreased length hospital stay and fewer additional surgical procedures’. However, the quality of the published literature is low and sound evidence for the benefit of NPWTi is still lacking. The present study aims to compare the effectiveness of NPWT and NPWTi using an improvised system with continuous lavage with saline and chlorhexidine in superficial and deep SSIs after conventional laparotomy or laparoscopic abdominal surgery.Material and MethodsThe study analyzes a prospective database encompassing 17 January 2018–25 December 2023. All patients underwent surgical debridement and lavage with 3–5 l saline under anesthesia. Systemic antibiotics were administered according to the antibiogram. In conventional NPWT, the wound was filled with black foam (Granufoam®, KCI) and covered with plastic folio. A continuous pressure of 125 mmHg was applied using the hospital suction system. In NPWTi, the whole wound was filled with Granufoam®. The instillation was performed via gravity from i.v. bag through a drain put within the foam. Chlorhexidine 0.1% 300 ml in 700 ml saline was used for continuous instillation three times daily (3 l per day) on the background of continuous pressure of 125 mmHg. Double masking was applied (Investigator and Outcomes Assessor). Primary outcomes were the rate of wound closure and 30-day infection recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay, number of OR visits, and time to wound closure (suture or flap). The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT06014788.ResultsOut of 4765 operated patients for the last five years, the HAIs and SSIs were 3.1% (n = 149) and 2.6% (n = 125). The distribution of ESKAPEE pathogens was following: E. faecium—34.4%, S. aureus—8%, K. pneumoniae—10.4%, A. baumanii—8%, P. aeruginosa—11.2%, Enterobacter—7.2%, E. coli—32.8%. A total of 62 consecutive patients (standard NPWT—41, NPWTi—21) have been included. Conventional NPWT managed the first consecutive 30 cases. The next 21 were treated with either conventional NPWT or NPWTi at the discretion of the operating surgeon, whereas the last 11 were treated with NPWTi. There was deep SSI in 32 cases—19 in NPWT and 13 in NPWTi. The mean age was 60.8 versus 57 years. The rate of wound closure was 93% versus 91%, the 30-day infection recurrence rate was 2% versus 10%, and the complication rate was 2% versus 10%. The secondary outcomes were as follows: hospital stay—19.3 versus 20.8 days, number of OR visits—3.71 versus 2.9, and time to wound closure (suture or flap)—11.8 versus 11.6 days. None of the abovementioned differences was statistically significant.ConclusionThe interim analysis of this prospective ongoing trial demonstrates no significant benefit of NPWTi in comparison to the conventional NPWT in superficial or deep SSIs after laparotomy.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    46 Results after continuous evaluation of antibiotic guidelines in acute appendicitis

    Membrilla-Fernandez, Señora Estela; Alonso-González, Laura; Galindo, Jorge; González-Castillo, Ana María; Pelegrina-Manzano, Amalia; Guzman-Ahumada, Juan; Cremona, Simone; Cuadern, Neus; De Miguel-Palacios, Maite; Lorente-Poch, Leyre

    2025 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaf024.016

    Showing 1 to 10 of 38 Articles

    Previous1234Next
    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
    The patient, a 73-year-old woman with multiple medical history, consulted the emergency department (ED) of a second-level hospital due to severe left rib pain radiating to the abdomen. Initially, it was diagnosed as postherpetic neuralgia. However, during the examination in the ED, absence of breath sounds were found in the left lung base and severe pain in the left hemithorax, leading to a chest X-ray which revealed a massive left pleural effusion. A thoracentesis was performed which confirmed the presence of empyema. The patient was admitted, treatment was started with empirical Ceftriaxone and a pleural drain was placed. Urokinase was administered for 5 days and the drain was removed. She presented a torpid evolution with persistent fever and elevation of acute phase reactants despite treatment. During admission, the patient developed inflammation of the left lower chest wall, which was diagnosed as cellulitis. Antibiotic coverage was extended to Linezolid and Imipenem. However, the patient worsened clinically, presenting hypotension and tachycardia, leading to suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. An urgent thoracic CT scan revealed a bilateral acute pneumonic infectious process with pulmonary necrosis and signs of pleural-extraspleural fistula, which was classified as necrotizing pneumonia complicated by empyema necessitatis. Clindamycin was added to the treatment. The patient was referred to a tertiary hospital in order to be evaluated by thoracic surgeons for urgent surgical debridement. Significant fibrous pleuropulmonary adhesions were found requiring costal resection. Malodorous fluid was aspirated and pleural and thoracic drains were placed. During surgery, the patient presented poor hemodynamic and ventilatory tolerance, requiring bipulmonary ventilation and the impossibility of extubation after surgery, therefore she was admitted to the ICU. Due to a poor hemodynamic evolution, the patient required a second septic control surgery one week later. A left thoracotomy was performed and multiple fibrous pleuropulmonary adhesions were again observed. Abundant purulent material was evacuated and cultures were positive for Parvimona and mixed aero-anaerobic flora. The patient required vasoactive support during the first 72 hours, but this was subsequently withdrawn without incident. A follow-up CT scan 5 days after the second surgery showed worsening of the necrotizing pneumonia. A third urgent surgery was performed in which pleuropulmonary fibropurulent tissue was observed and removed, abundant lavage was performed and drains were placed in muscular and costal planes. Negative pressure therapy (VAC system) was performed. After a prolonged admission to the ICU presented favorable evolution and she was discharged to the ward.
    AimAlthough disruptive scientific evidence fueled the inclusion of perioperative normothermia measures in to the bundles to prevent hypothermia, data on the specific tools to adequate implement normothermia measures in patients at risk are lacking. Also, is unknown how the evolving new surgical devices devoted to facilitate both less invasive and precision surgical techniques influence on the efficacy of classical normothermia measures. Pragmatic prospective observational study was designed to clarify which surgical patients are at risk for perioperative hypothermia and the efficacy of the available physical normothermia measures in the era of evolving new surgical devices and techniques.MethodsThe study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the center. Adults patients submitted to major surgical procedures were included. Perioperative continuous core temperature (CT) monitoring has been assessed with the SpotOn system. Conventional normothermia measures applied during surgical procedures were registered. Warmed Body Surface Area (WBSA) Score was constructed following the rule of nine (burned patients). Surgical procedures were classified depending of the anatomical compartment involved: Articular, Head and Neck, Organ-Cavity and Trunk. Also, Organ-cavity surgical procedures were further classified depending on the type of surgical access: Open, laparoscopic and robotic. Variables were summarized as mean ± SD or 95% c.i. or as median and interquartile range, when appropriate. Differences in AUC below 35.5° among different anatomical compartment surgical procedures and depending on the operative access (open, laparoscopic and robotic), were analyzed by employing the non-parametric Kruskall Wallis test. Differences in mean CT throughout the time points among groups were tested using one-way analysis of variance. Multiple comparisons were performed using Scheffé’s test. We considered differences significant at P < 0.05.ResultsEighty-nine patients were included for the final analysis, 51.7% (41.4 to 62) women with mean age of 62.9 (59.8 to 66.0) years and ASA II in 55.7% (49.4 to 69.7) of patients. Warmed forced air blanket was the most normothermia measure employed (100%, 84.6%; 91.7% and 100% in Organ-cavity, articular, Head and Neck and Trunk surgeries, respectively). Compared to open procedures, WBSA was significantly lower in both laparoscopic and robotic surgical procedures (54% versus 27% and 18%, respectively, P < 0.001). CT was assessed during each surgical procedure at the specific time points. CT dropped early on after anesthesia induction. Organ-Cavity surgical procedures persistently demonstrated significant lower CT values during the overall procedure. Head/Neck dropped sharply showing early recovery and finally achieving hyperthermia values. Also Time-weighted average CT was significantly lower in Organ/Cavity surgical procedures. We further explore CT variables in Organ-cavity group of patients, taking in to the account the technique of surgical access. Regarding CT relevant variables, we observed that endoscopic procedures showed lower mean CT values overall (non-significant), higher AUC below the threshold (35.5°C) (non-significant), a higher percentage of patients 35.5°C (significant), mainly in robotic access groupConclusionPerioperative hypothermia is not an homogenous adverse event. Despite endorsement of conventional normothermia measures, patients submitted to organ-cavity surgical procedures are at risk for perioperative hypothermia. New and adapted normothermia measures for endoscopic and robotic based surgery are urgent needed.
    pmid:
    N/A
    IntroductionThe daily reevaluation of the need to continue with postoperative antibiotic treatment in intra-abdominal infection is one of the strategies to reduce antibiotic resistance in our environment, since it avoids the selection of resistant bacterial strains. Thus, limiting the duration of antibiotic treatment is useful to reduce the deleterious effects of antimicrobials on the patient, avoiding adverse effects derived from them.Material and methodsAn observational, single-center and retrospective study was proposed of the result of not having strict guidelines for postoperative antibiotic duration in the case of intra-abdominal infection of appendiceal origin. Since 2018, when the PROA teams were created, in our center, different measures have been carried out. Two periods 2017–2018 were compared, pre-implementation of the PROA with the years 2021–2022 and 2023. Both in-hospital and at one month, any complication that occurred was recorded through clavien-dindo classification, readmission and the total and postoperative duration of stay, in a base for the entire General Surgery service with an independent data manager and peer review. Also, the patient's age, type of appendicitis with macroscopic and microscopic classification, approach route, total conversion and antibiotic regimens administered were recorded.ResultsIn the first period, 798 patients were included, who presented 19% of adverse effects, among them related to the wound they accounted for 6.5% and intra-abdominal ones (abscesses) for 4.6%. In the second period, 881 patients were included, who presented 18.2% of total adverse effects. Those related to the wound accounted for 4.8% and abscesses for 3.18%. No differences between both periods, P = 0.14 in the case of wounds or intra-abdominal infection P = 0.07. The postoperative hospital stay for all types of acute appendicitis did not vary between periods; it was reduced in the case of phlegmonous appendicitis, which went from 2.4 days to 1.29 days. In 71% of cases, empirical antibiotic treatment was amoxiilicin-clavulanate and cefotaxime + metronidazole in 23% of cases. The greater number of patients with short duration regimens of 1 and/or two days was significant both in appendicitis with peritonitis and in the group described as perforated and gangrenous with [9.8% versus 22%; P = 0.037] and [16% versus 25%; P = 0.04].ConclusionsThere has been no increase in readmissions, re-interventions, intra-abdominal abscesses or surgical wound infection. An overall reduction in hospital stay has been achieved. The duration of treatment in complicated acute appendicitis has been significantly reduced. Studies must continue to advance with the characteristics of the patients and the duration of antibiotic treatment must be prospective, as well as reported by dose per day per patient, otherwise it can be overestimated.