Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 

About: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Breast cancer & Poison control. It has an ISSN identifier of 0004-8682. Over the lifetime, 6241 publications have been published receiving 66165 citations.

Easy and successful treatment of pilonidal sinus after explanation of its causative process.

Abstract: Hair insertion causes pilonidal sinus, it prevents spontaneous recovery, delays healing of any wound in the depth of the natal cleft, and is the cause of recurrence. An understanding of the hair insertion process made it possible to avoid hair insertion in 6545 cases of the condition with the use of the advancing flap operation. Results have proved this to be an easy and successful way of treating and preventing recurrence of pilonidal sinus. Furthermore, that understanding has introduced the possibility of preventing pilonidal sinus, through ways simpler than the simplest operation.

A history of photodynamic therapy.

Abstract: The origins of light as a therapy in medicine and surgery are traced from antiquity to the modern day. Phototherapy began in ancient Greece, Egypt and India but disappeared for many centuries, only being rediscovered by Western civilization at the beginning of the twentieth century through the Dane, Niels Finsen, and the Germans Oscar Raab and Herman von Tappeiner. The discovery of the tumour-localizing ability of haematoporphyrin, together with its phototoxic effect on tumour cells led to the development of photodynamic therapy, a promising tool in modern cancer treatment.

Single-versus multiple–dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: a systematic review

Abstract: Background: Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is widely accepted principle; recommendations have been based on laboratory studies and numerous clinical trials published in the last 25 years. In practice, single-dose prophylaxis has not been universally accepted and multiple-dose regimens are still used in some centres. Moreover, the principle has recently been challenged by the results of an Australian study of vascular surgery. The aim of this current systematic review is to determine the overall efficacy of single versus multiple–dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery and across surgical disciplines. Methods: Relevant studies were identified in the medical literature using the MEDLINE database and other search strategies. Trials included in the review were prospective and randomized, had the same antimicrobial in each treatment arm and were published in English. Rates of postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) were extracted, 2 × 2 tables prepared and odds ratios (OR) [with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] calculated. Data were then combined using fixed and random effects models to provide an overall figure. In this context, high value for the combined OR, with 95% CI > 1.0, indicates superiority of multiple–dose regimens and low OR, with 95% CI < 1.0, suggests the opposite. A combined OR close to 1.0, with narrow 95% CI straddling 1.0, indicates no clear advantage of one regimen over another. Further subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Combined OR by both fixed (1.06,95% CI, 0.89–1.25) and random effects (1.04, 95% CI, 0.86–1.25) models indicated no clear advantage of either single or multiple-dose regimens in preventing SSI. Likewise, subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences associated with type of antimicrobial used (beta-lactam vs other), blinded wound assessment, length of the multiple–dose arm (> 24 h vs 24 h or less) or type of surgery (obstetric and gynaecological vs other). Conclusions: Continued use of single–dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery is recommended. Further studies are required, especially in previously neglected surgical disciplines.