Explore the vast range of titles available.

80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

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

The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1–84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0–88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5–81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9–68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0–4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1–5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0–3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3–6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic.

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains the most common complication of surgery around the world. WHO does not make recommendations for changing gloves and instruments before wound closure owing to a lack of evidence. This study aimed to test whether a routine change of gloves and instruments before wound closure reduced abdominal SSI. ChEETAh was a multicentre, cluster randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa). Any hospitals (clusters) doing abdominal surgery in participating countries were eligible. Clusters were randomly assigned to current practice (42) versus intervention (39; routine change of gloves and instruments before wound closure for the whole scrub team). Consecutive adults and children undergoing emergency or elective abdominal surgery (excluding caesarean section) for a clean–contaminated, contaminated, or dirty operation within each cluster were identified and included. It was not possible to mask the site investigators, nor the outcome assessors, but patients were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery (participant-level), assessed by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria and on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The trial has 90% power to detect a minimum reduction in the primary outcome from 16% to 12%, requiring 12 800 participants from at least 64 clusters. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749. Between June 24, 2020 and March 31, 2022, 81 clusters were randomly assigned, which included a total of 13 301 consecutive patients (7157 to current practice and 6144 to intervention group). Overall, 11 825 (88·9%) of 13 301 patients were adults, 6125 (46·0%) of 13 301 underwent elective surgery, and 8086 (60·8%) of 13 301 underwent surgery that was clean–contaminated or 5215 (39·2%) of 13 301 underwent surgery that was contaminated–dirty. Glove and instrument change took place in 58 (0·8%) of 7157 patients in the current practice group and 6044 (98·3%) of 6144 patients in the intervention group. The SSI rate was 1280 (18·9%) of 6768 in the current practice group versus 931 (16·0%) of 5789 in the intervention group (adjusted risk ratio: 0·87, 95% CI 0·79–0·95; p=0·0032). There was no evidence to suggest heterogeneity of effect across any of the prespecified subgroup analyses. We did not anticipate or collect any specific data on serious adverse events. This trial showed a robust benefit to routinely changing gloves and instruments before abdominal wound closure. We suggest that it should be widely implemented into surgical practice around the world. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award, NIHR Global Health Research Unit Grant, Mölnlycke Healthcare.

Critical illness represents a major global health-care burden and critical care is an essential component of hospital care. There are few data describing the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of critically ill patients in African hospitals. This was an international, prospective, point prevalence study in acute hospitals across Africa. Investigators examined all inpatients aged 18 years or older, regardless of location, to assess the coprimary outcomes of critical illness and 7-day mortality. Patients were classified as critically ill if at least one vital sign was severely deranged. Data were collected for the available resources at each hospital and care provided to patients. We included 19 872 patients from 180 hospitals in 22 African countries or territories between September, 2023 and December, 2023. The median age was 40 (IQR 29–59) years, and 11 078/19 862 (55·8%) patients were women. There were 967/19 780 (4·9%) deaths. On census day, 2461/19 743 (12·5%) patients were critically ill, with 1688/2459 (68·6%) cared for in general wards. Among the critically ill, 507/2450 (20·7%) patients died in hospital. Mortality for non-critically ill patients was 458/17 205 (2·7%). Critical illness on census day was independently associated with subsequent in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 7·72 [6·65–8·95]). Of the critically ill patients with respiratory failure, 557/1151 (48·4%) were receiving oxygen; of the patients with circulatory failure, 521/965 (54·0%) were receiving intravenous fluids or vasopressors; and of patients with low conscious level, 387/784 (49·4%) were receiving an airway intervention or placed in the recovery position. One in eight patients in hospitals in Africa are critically ill, of whom one in five dies within 7 days. Most critically ill patients are cared for in general wards, and most do not receive the essential emergency and critical care treatments they require. Our findings suggest a high burden of critical illness in Africa and that improving the care of critically ill patients would have the potential to save many lives. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Group in Perioperative and Critical Care (NIHR133850).

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high‐income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left‐sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg‐1 and ‐2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left‐sided colorectal resection within discrete 2‐week windows. Countries were grouped into high‐, middle‐ and low‐income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left‐sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low‐HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle‐HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high‐HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low‐ compared with middle‐ and high‐HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low‐HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left‐sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone. This secondary analysis of an international prospective multicentre observational study demonstrates significant variation in the proportion of patients receiving an end stoma after left‐sided colorectal resection between high‐ and low–middle‐income countries; this cannot be accounted for by case mix alone. This could relate to unmeasured patient risk characteristics, but may also reflect delayed access to surgical care, lack of equipment for anastomosis formation, or differences in subspecialist colorectal training. Wide variation in stoma rates

Background Gastrointestinal perforation is the most serious complication of typhoid fever, with a high disease burden in low-income countries. Reliable, prospective, contemporary surgical outcome data are scarce in these settings. This study aimed to investigate surgical outcomes following surgery for intestinal typhoid. Methods Two multicentre, international prospective cohort studies of consecutive patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal typhoid perforation were conducted. Outcomes were measured at 30 days and included mortality, surgical site infection, organ space infection and reintervention rate. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for clinically plausible explanatory variables. Effect estimates are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) alongside their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results A total of 88 patients across the GlobalSurg 1 and GlobalSurg 2 studies were included, from 11 countries. Children comprised 38.6% (34/88) of included patients. Most patients (87/88) had intestinal perforation. The 30-day mortality rate was 9.1% (8/88), which was higher in children (14.7 vs. 5.6%). Surgical site infection was common, at 67.0% (59/88). Organ site infection was common, with 10.2% of patients affected. An ASA grade of III and above was a strong predictor of 30-day post-operative mortality, at the univariable level and following adjustment for explanatory variables (OR 15.82, 95% CI 1.53–163.57, p  = 0.021). Conclusions With high mortality and complication rates, outcomes from surgery for intestinal typhoid remain poor. Future studies in this area should focus on sustainable interventions which can reduce perioperative morbidity. At a policy level, improving these outcomes will require both surgical and public health system advances.

Background Cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCT) present challenges regarding risks of bias and chance imbalances by arm. This paper reports strategies to minimise and monitor biases and imbalances in the ChEETAh cRCT. Methods ChEETAh was an international cRCT (hospitals as clusters) evaluating whether changing sterile gloves and instruments prior to abdominal wound closure reduces surgical site infection at 30 days postoperative. ChEETAh planned to recruit 12,800 consecutive patients from 64 hospitals in seven low-middle income countries. Eight strategies to minimise and monitor bias were pre-specified: (1) minimum of 4 hospitals per country; (2) pre-randomisation identification of units of exposure (operating theatres, lists, teams or sessions) within clusters; (3) minimisation of randomisation by country and hospital type; (4) site training delivered after randomisation; (5) dedicated ‘warm-up week’ to train teams; (6) trial specific sticker and patient register to monitor consecutive patient identification; (7) monitoring characteristics of patients and units of exposure; and (8) low-burden outcome-assessment. Results This analysis includes 10,686 patients from 70 clusters. The results aligned to the eight strategies were (1) 6 out of 7 countries included ≥ 4 hospitals; (2) 87.1% (61/70) of hospitals maintained their planned operating theatres (82% [27/33] and 92% [34/37] in the intervention and control arms); (3) minimisation maintained balance of key factors in both arms; (4) post-randomisation training was conducted for all hospitals; (5) the ‘warm-up week’ was conducted at all sites, and feedback used to refine processes; (6) the sticker and trial register were maintained, with an overall inclusion of 98.1% (10,686/10,894) of eligible patients; (7) monitoring allowed swift identification of problems in patient inclusion and key patient characteristics were reported: malignancy (20.3% intervention vs 12.6% control), midline incisions (68.4% vs 58.9%) and elective surgery (52.4% vs 42.6%); and (8) 0.4% (41/9187) of patients refused consent for outcome assessment. Conclusion cRCTs in surgery have several potential sources of bias that include varying units of exposure and the need for consecutive inclusion of all eligible patients across complex settings. We report a system that monitored and minimised the risks of bias and imbalances by arm, with important lessons for future cRCTs within hospitals.

BackgroundTrauma is a heterogeneous disease entity, with high rates of mortality and morbidity observed globally. While the health systems in which trauma patients are cared for worldwide have been previously assessed to varying degrees, many of the system processes that shape trauma patient outcomes remain unknown.MethodsWe conducted a survey of 187 hospitals across 51 countries, through the GOAL-Trauma collaborative network. We explored prehospital, intrahospital and rehabilitation phases of trauma care. Data were compared across Human Development Index (HDI) tertiles, with thematic analyses performed to identify similarities and variation across settings.FindingsHospital-based care appeared to develop preferentially out of the three phases of trauma care, with challenges from the middle HDI tertile being more analogous to the upper HDI tertile than the lower HDI tertile. A lack of emergency medical services, limited patient finances and a lack of health literacy were common causes of prehospital delay in the lower and middle HDI tertiles. Surgeons and anaesthetists working in lower and middle HDI tertiles perform approximately 3-fold and 10-fold more operations, respectively, compared with upper HDI tertile counterparts. Across all HDI tertiles, infection was reported as the most common cause of postoperative morbidity.InterpretationA wide range of resources and processes exist globally in trauma care. Our findings suggest that with increasing resource availability, in-hospital care of trauma patients develops preferentially over prehospital or rehabilitation services. There is a clear need to coordinate available resources across all phases of care in order to improve outcomes among trauma patients.

First referral hospitals, often known as district hospitals, are neglected in the discourse on universal health coverage in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, these hospitals are important for delivering safe surgery for 313 million people. This study aims to understand the structures, processes and outcomes of patients undergoing surgery in these centres in LMICs. This is a preplanned secondary analysis using data from two high-quality randomised controlled trials undergoing major abdominal surgery across six LMICs. Type of hospital was the main explanatory variable, defined according to the WHO taxonomy as first referral (ie, district or rural) and referral (ie, secondary or tertiary). Of the included 15 657 patients across 80 hospitals from 6 countries, 3562 patients underwent surgery in first referral and 12 149 patients underwent surgery in referral centres. First referral centres have lower full-time surgeons (median: 1 vs 20, p<0.001) and medically trained anaesthetists (28.6% vs 87.1%, p<0.001) compared with referral centres. Patients undergoing surgery in first referral centres were more likely to have lower rates of American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) grades III–V (8.1% vs 22.7%, p<0.001), but higher rates of emergency procedures (65.1% vs 56.6%, p<0.001). In first referral centres, there was a significantly higher use of WHO surgical safety checklist (99.4% vs 93.3%, p<0.001) compared with referral centres. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences in 30-day mortality (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.62) and surgical site infection (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90) between first referral and referral centres. Postoperative mortality and surgical site infection remain similar between first referral and referral centres in LMICs. There may be a clear need to upscale surgical volume safely in first referral centres to meet global surgical needs. High-quality research is needed to drive safe expansion of surgical workforce and strengthen referral pathways within these surgical health systems in LMICs.