Randomized clinical trial of gut‐specific nutrients in critically ill surgical patients (Br J Surg 2010; 97: 1629–1636)

M. Kanhere,H. Kanhere

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7451

2011-03-01

Abstract:Sir I would like to congratulate the team from New South Wales on what was a very well designed study, especially their efforts to rigorously standardize aspects of patient care not directly linked to the two methods of ileostomy site closure under scrutiny. It was unfortunate that the study could not be completed to its original population size as this would have proven that the reduced surgical-site infection (SSI) rate was not due to sampling error. It would also have enabled meaningful subgroup analysis and may have shown a benefit in using purse-string closure in obese patients. A robust definition was used to identify SSIs, but with eight of the total of 12 SSIs being diagnosed in the community it would have been useful to know whether the medical officer responsible for prescribing antibiotic treatment also adhered to this definition. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, no mention was given to the potential deleterious effects on quality of life that having a continually seeping wound and daily pack changes would cause those in the purse-string closure group. The rate of infection in linear closure may be approaching 40 per cent, but the wounds in the remaining 60 per cent needed no further attention except for suture removal. Even patients who develop a severe SSI need treatment not much different from that given as standard to the purse-string group, that is pack changes after the initial drainage. We think this is an additional important factor to consider when selecting the method of ileostomy closure. A. Moreton, S. Shankar and S. Jones Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Leighton Hospital, Gewe, Cheshire CW1 4QJ, UK (e-mail: a.moreton@doctors.org.uk) DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7439