BACKGROUND: Discussion of outcomes of surgical sepsis is no longer straightforward. Definitions of sepsis have changed recently and updated data are scant. Surgical patient populations are often heterogeneous; the patient population being considered must be described with precision. Traditional 30-d operative mortality may not be the most relevant outcome to consider. What should change or be the emphasis going forward? METHODS: Review and synthesis of pertinent English-language literature. RESULTS: Epidemiologic data are abundant for short-term outcomes of sepsis in general, but despite the fact that approximately 30% of patients with sepsis are surgical patients, sepsis outcome data for surgical patients are scant, especially for durations longer than 30 d, and essentially non-existent for patients defined under the new Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria. Interpretability of extant data is hampered by non-standard and changing definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis and organ dysfunction may be decreasing in prevalence and magnitude among surgical patients, but terminology must be standardized to enhance the interpretability of data generated in the future. It behooves journal editors, reviewers, and authors to insist upon standardized definitions and rigorous study design and data interpretation. Longer term data (e.g., 90-d mortality as opposed to in-hospital or traditional 30-d mortality) will be needed to justify to payers the complex, expensive care that these patients require. There is an urgent need to redefine the research agenda for surgical infections.
