-
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Feb 2019Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent healthcare-associated infection in France. SSI rates in total hip or knee replacement are around 2%. The main... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent healthcare-associated infection in France. SSI rates in total hip or knee replacement are around 2%. The main bacteria implicated in SSI in clean surgery are those of the skin flora, whence the importance of skin preparation to eliminate transient flora and reduce resident flora. Guidelines for the prevention of SSI have progressed in recent years in France: firstly in 2013, and then in 2016. That preoperative hair removal and scrubbing of clean skin ahead of cutaneous asepsis is non-contributive was confirmed in 2013. A shower with normal soap taken as close to the beginning of surgery as possible is still recommended, as is use of alcoholic antiseptics for cutaneous asepsis. The debate remains open between chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in several surgical specialties in the absence of any multicenter studies. Future choices of antiseptic may need to take account of resistance, especially to chlorhexidine, and possible side-effects. Finally, antimicrobial skin sealants and adhesive surgical drapes are not recommended for the prevention of infection.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Baths; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Hair Removal; Humans; Infection Control; Operating Rooms; Preoperative Care; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30393070
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these SSIs can be considerable in financial and social terms. Many interventions are used with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI in people undergoing surgery. These interventions can be broadly delivered at three stages: preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The intraoperative interventions are largely focused on decontamination of skin using soap and antiseptics; the use of barriers to prevent movement of micro-organisms into incisions; and optimising the patient's own bodily functions to promote best recovery. Both decontamination and barrier methods can be aimed at people undergoing surgery and operating staff. Other interventions focused on SSI prevention may be aimed at the surgical environment and include methods of theatre cleansing and approaches to managing theatre traffic.
OBJECTIVES
To present an overview of Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of interventions, delivered during the intraoperative period, aimed at preventing SSIs in all populations undergoing surgery in an operating theatre.
METHODS
Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness of interventions delivered during the intraoperative period in terms of SSI prevention were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane protocols and title registrations for future inclusion into the overview. We searched the Cochrane Library on 01 July 2017. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and certainty assessment. We used the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 Cochrane Reviews in this overview: we judged 30 reviews as being at low risk of bias and two at unclear risk of bias. Thirteen reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Two reviews had no relevant data to extract. We extracted data from 30 reviews with 349 included trials, totaling 73,053 participants. Interventions assessed included gloving, use of disposable face masks, patient oxygenation protocols, use of skin antiseptics for hand washing and patient skin preparation, vaginal preparation, microbial sealants, methods of surgical incision, antibiotic prophylaxis and methods of skin closure. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence for outcomes was low or very low. Of the 77 comparisons providing evidence for the outcome of SSI, seven provided high- or moderate-certainty evidence, 39 provided low-certainty evidence and 31 very low-certainty evidence. Of the nine comparisons that provided evidence for the outcome of mortality, five provided low-certainty evidence and four very low-certainty evidence.There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence for the following outcomes for these intraoperative interventions. (1) Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision reduce SSI risk compared with administration after cord clamping (10 trials, 5041 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.81; high-certainty evidence - assessed by review authors). (2) Preoperative antibiotics reduce SSI risk compared with placebo after breast cancer surgery (6 trials, 1708 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence - assessed by overview authors). (3) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduce SSI risk in caesarean sections compared with no antibiotics (82 relevant trials, 14,407 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by review authors). (4) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces SSI risk for hernia repair compared with placebo or no treatment (17 trials, 7843 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by overview authors); (5) There is currently no clear difference in the risk of SSI between iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes compared with no adhesive drapes (2 trials, 1113 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.60; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by review authors); (6) There is currently no clear difference in SSI risk between short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotics in colorectal surgery (7 trials; 1484 participants; RR 1.05 95% CI 0.78 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by overview authors). There was only one comparison showing negative effects associated with the intervention: adhesive drapes increase the risk of SSI compared with no drapes (5 trials; 3082 participants; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; high-certainty evidence - rated by review authors).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on use of intraoperative treatments for the prevention of SSIs from all currently published Cochrane Reviews. There is evidence that some interventions are useful in reducing SSI risk for people undergoing surgery, such as antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section and hernia repair, and also the timing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision. Also, there is evidence that adhesive drapes increase SSI risk. Evidence for the many other treatment choices is largely of low or very low certainty and no quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness data were reported. Future trials should elucidate the relative effects of some treatments. These studies should focus on increasing participant numbers, using robust methodology and being of sufficient duration to adequately assess SSI. Assessment of other outcomes such as mortality might also be investigated as part of non-experimental prospective follow-up of people with SSI of different severity, so the risk of death for different subgroups can be better understood.
Topics: Humans; Intraoperative Care; Review Literature as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 29406579
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012653.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to minimise risks to the mother as much as possible. This review focused on different skin preparations to prevent infection. This is an update of a review last published in 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different antiseptic agents, different methods of application, or different forms of antiseptic used for preoperative skin preparation for preventing postcaesarean infection.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials, evaluating any type of preoperative skin preparation (agents, methods or forms). We included studies presented only as abstracts, if there was enough information to assess risk of bias. Comparisons of interest in this review were between: different antiseptic agents (e.g. alcohol, povidone iodine), different methods of antiseptic application (e.g. scrub, paint, drape), different forms of antiseptic (e.g. powder, liquid), and also between different packages of skin preparation including a mix of agents and methods, such as a plastic incisional drape, which may or may not be impregnated with antiseptic agents. We mainly focused on the comparison between different agents, with and without the use of drapes. Only studies involving the preparation of the incision area were included. This review did not cover studies of preoperative handwashing by the surgical team or preoperative bathing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, extracted the data and checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 6938 women who were undergoing caesarean section. Twelve trials (6916 women) contributed data to this review. The trial dates ranged from 1983 to 2016. Six trials were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in India, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, France, Denmark, and Indonesia. The included studies were broadly at low risk of bias for most domains, although high risk of detection bias raised some specific concerns in a number of studies. Length of stay was only reported in one comparison. Antiseptic agents Parachlorometaxylenol with iodine versus iodine alone We are uncertain whether parachlorometaxylenol with iodine made any difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99; 1 trial, 50 women), or endometritis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; 1 trial, 50 women) when compared with iodine alone, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse events (maternal or neonatal) were not reported. Chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, probably slightly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 trials, 4323 women). This effect was still present in a sensitivity analysis after removing four trials at high risk of bias for outcome assessment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; 4 trials, 2037 women). Low-certainty evidence indicated that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, may make little or no difference to the incidence of endometritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.86; 3 trials, 2484 women). It is uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate reduces maternal skin irritation or allergic skin reaction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46; 3 trials, 1926 women; very low certainty evidence). One small study (60 women) reported reduced bacterial growth at 18 hours after caesarean section for women who had chlorhexidine gluconate preparation compared with women who had povidone iodine preparation (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70). Methods Drape versus no drape This comparison investigated the use of drape versus no drape, following preparation of the skin with antiseptics. Low-certainty evidence suggested that using a drape before surgery compared with no drape, may make little or no difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.71; 3 trials, 1373 women), and probably makes little or no difference to the length of stay in the hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 1 trial, 603 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial compared an alcohol scrub and iodophor drape with a five-minute iodophor scrub only, and reported no surgical site infection in either group (79 women, very-low certainty evidence). We were uncertain whether the combination of a one-minute alcohol scrub and a drape reduced the incidence of metritis when compared with a five-minute scrub, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.16; 1 trial, 79 women). The studies did not report on adverse events (maternal or neonatal).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that preparing the skin with chlorhexidine gluconate before caesarean section is probably slightly more effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection in comparison to povidone iodine. For other outcomes examined there was insufficient evidence available from the included RCTs. Most of the evidence in this review was deemed to be very low or low certainty. This means that for most findings, our confidence in any evidence of an intervention effect is limited, and indicates the need for more high-quality research. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most effective for preventing postcaesarean surgical site infection, or for reducing other undesirable outcomes for mother and baby. Well-designed RCTs, with larger sample sizes are needed. High-priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing, or draping). We found two studies that are ongoing; we will incorporate the results of these studies in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Endometritis; Ethanol; Female; Humans; Iodine; Iodophors; Length of Stay; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection; Xylenes
PubMed: 32580252
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007462.pub5 -
The Veterinary Clinics of North... Jan 2016The diversity implicit in exotic animal surgery requires a tailored approach to optimize successful outcomes. Outlined is information on patient preparation,... (Review)
Review
The diversity implicit in exotic animal surgery requires a tailored approach to optimize successful outcomes. Outlined is information on patient preparation, instrumentation, hemostatic techniques, and magnification as it pertains to the exotic animal. Application of topical antiseptic solutions and judicious removal of pelage and feathers will decrease bacterial load during patient preparation. The use of specific barrier protection ensures proper aseptic technique and enables optimal patient monitoring. Magnification combined with a focal light source enhances visual acuity, allowing for better use of delicate instrumentation and identification of anatomic structures.
Topics: Animals; Animals, Exotic; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Hemostasis, Surgical; Surgery, Veterinary; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Equipment; Surgical Instruments; Sutures
PubMed: 26611922
DOI: 10.1016/j.cvex.2015.08.011 -
Anesthesiology Jan 2021Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block...
BACKGROUND
Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier.
METHODS
Aerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac.
RESULTS
Vapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator.
CONCLUSIONS
Barrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment.
Topics: Aerosols; COVID-19; Cough; Health Personnel; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Occupational Exposure; Personal Protective Equipment
PubMed: 33125457
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003597 -
Operative Techniques in... Jun 2022In this article, we aim to summarize the impacts of COVID-19 on the practice of otologic surgery. Cadaveric studies have indicated COVID-19 viral particles are present...
In this article, we aim to summarize the impacts of COVID-19 on the practice of otologic surgery. Cadaveric studies have indicated COVID-19 viral particles are present in the middle ear mucosa of infected hosts. Otologic procedures can generate significant amounts of droplets due to reliance on high-speed drills. Multiple guidelines have been developed to improve patient and provider safety peri-operatively. Particle dispersion can be mitigated during microscopic mastoidectomy by utilizing barrier drape techniques. The barrier drape may similarly be applied to the surgical exoscope. Endoscopic techniques have theoretical improved safety benefits by minimizing the need for drilling. The discoveries and innovations borne of the COVID-19 pandemic will lay the groundwork for the practice of otology amidst future pandemics.
PubMed: 35502269
DOI: 10.1016/j.otot.2022.04.004 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Jun 2018Surgical site infections (SSI) are a public health issue. The purpose of this review is to review the literature on methods of pre-operative skin preparation for the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Surgical site infections (SSI) are a public health issue. The purpose of this review is to review the literature on methods of pre-operative skin preparation for the prevention of SSI in abdominal surgery.
METHODS
In order to obtain the best level of evidence, only meta-analyses and randomized controlled clinical trials were selected from the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. High-powered non-randomized studies were included when results were not available for the questions asked. The primary endpoint was the rate of SSI within 30 days.
RESULTS
Analysis of the 20 selected studies suggested that hair removal in the operative field is not recommended except when it interferes with surgery; in this case, hair clipping or chemical depilation is recommended and shaving should be banned. For the pre-operative shower, the choice of a detergent product with or without antiseptic does not seem to matter, and there were no published data on the required number of showers or the interval before surgery. Application of an alcohol-based solution to the operative field for cutaneous disinfection is recommended; the products used seem to be equivalent, and there is no need for pre-operative detergent scrubbing. There is no strong evidence to recommend adhesive plastic drapes for clean or contaminated surgery.
CONCLUSION
Some recommendations on skin preparation before abdominal surgery to reduce the rate of SSI are based on a high level of evidence. Other recommendations such as the number and duration of pre-operative showers or use of adhesive plastic skin drapes are less well supported.
Topics: Abdomen; Humans; Infection Control; Preoperative Care; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 29631947
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2018.03.004 -
Cureus Dec 2015Retrospective chart analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective chart analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to describe the senior author's (MNN) experience applying a widely available surgical drape as a postoperative sterile surgical site dressing for both cranial and spinal procedures.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Surgical site infection (SSI) is an important complication of spine surgery that can result in significant morbidity. There is wide variation in wound care management in practice, including dressing type. Given the known bactericidal properties of the surgical drape, there may be a benefit of continuing its use immediately postoperatively.
METHODS
All of the senior author's cases from September 2014 through September 2015 were reviewed. These were contrasted to the previous year prior to the institution of a sterile surgical drape as a postoperative dressing.
RESULTS
Only one surgical case out of 157 operative interventions (35 cranial, 124 spinal) required operative debridement due to infection. From September 2013 to September 2014, prior to the institution of a sterile surgical drape as dressing, the author had five infections out of 143 operations (46 cranial, 97 spinal) requiring intervention.
CONCLUSION
The implementation of a sterile surgical drape as a closed postoperative surgical site dressing has led to a decrease in surgical site infections. The technique is simple and widely available, and should be considered for use to diminish surgical site infections.
PubMed: 26798570
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.394