Staples versus sutures for closing leg wounds after vein graft harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery

Preoperative Surgical Site Hair Removal for Elective Abdominal Surgery: Does It Have Impact on Surgical Site Infection

Introduction  Postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) forms the major burden of nosocomial infections in surgical patients. There is prevalent practice of surgical site hair shaving as a part of preoperative preparation. There is uncertainty regarding the benefit versus harm of shaving for SSIs. Hairs at surgical sites are removed prior to surgery most often by shaving. We performed this study to look for what impact preoperative hair removal by shaving has on postoperative SSI.

Methods  We performed prospective comparative cohort study in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries. We included clean and clean-contaminated surgeries in immunocompetent patients of which half were shaved and other half not shaved prior to surgery. Other confounding factors like skin cleaning, aseptic technique of surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment, and postoperative wound care were as per care. Patients were assessed for presence and grade of SSI postoperatively on day 7, 14, and 30. Results were analyzed statistically using chi-square and Fischer's exact tests for significance in entire sample as well as in demographic subgroups.

Results  Overall SSI rate was 11.42%. There was no statistically significant difference in SSI rates between patients who underwent preoperative surgical site hair removal by shaving (232) and who did not have shaving (232) on all the three different assessment timelines in postoperative period, namely, day 7, 14, and 30. Although the absolute number of patients who had SSI was more in those who underwent preoperative surgical site hair removal by shaving, the difference was not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05). But on subgroup analysis patients with clean-contaminated surgeries ( p  = 0.037) and patients with surgeries lasting for less than 2 hours (Fischer's exact = 0.034) had significantly higher SSI in the shaved group compared with unshaved on day 14.

Conclusion  As per our results, preoperative shaving did not significantly increase overall SSI except in subgroup of clean-contaminated surgeries and in surgeries of less than 2 hours' duration. So especially in these patients avoiding preoperative surgical site hair shaving may be used as one of the infection control measures.

Soft Elastomeric Capacitor for Strain and Stress Monitoring on Sutured Skin Tissues

Sutures are ubiquitous medical devices for wound closures in human and veterinary medicine, and suture techniques are frequently evaluated by comparing tensile strengths in ex vivo studies. Direct and nondestructive measurement of tensile force present in sutured biological skin tissue is a key challenge in biomechanical fields because of the unique and complex properties of each sutured skin specimen and the lack of compliant sensors capable of monitoring large levels of strain. The authors have recently proposed a soft elastomeric capacitor (SEC) sensor that consists of a highly compliant and scalable strain gauge capable of transducing geometric variations into a measurable change in capacitance. In this study, corrugated SECs are used to experimentally characterize the inherent biomechanical properties of canine skin specimens. In particular, an SEC corrugated with a re-entrant hexagonal honeycomb pattern is studied to monitor strain and stresses for three specific suture patterns: simple interrupted, cruciate, and intradermal patterns. Stress is estimated using constitutive models based on the Fractional Zener and the Kelvin-Voigt models, parametrized using a particle swarm algorithm from experimental data and results from a validated finite element model. Results are benchmarked against findings from the literature and show that SECs are valuable for clinical evaluation of tensile force in biological skins. It was found that both the ranking of suture pattern performance and the sutured skin's Young's modulus using the proposed approach agreed with data reported in the literature and that the estimated stress at the suture level closely matched that of an approximate finite element model.

Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure after primary hip arthroplasty

High-quality and cost-effective health care are highly recommended especially in joint replacement surgeries, particularly in total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, it is indispensable for orthopaedic surgeons to spot the potential areas of quality improvement. Evaluating the efficacy of the different ways of skin closure is an unacknowledged topic. We performed this study following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- analyses Statement (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Articles were from any country, written in any language. We included all randomised control trials and retrospective cohort studies undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty who either received staples or subcuticular sutures for skin closure. The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), time to skin closure, total cost, and patient’s satisfaction. We included five studies in our cumulative meta- analysis. We conducted them using Review Manager V.5.0. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used Random-effect models. Primary skin closure with subcuticular sutures had insignificant marginal advantages for wound infections, LOS, and wound oozing. On the contrary, staples were more cost- effective and had less time for closure with higher patient’s satisfaction. Except for closure time and patient satisfaction , no significant difference between the two groups. The use of staples after THA may have several slight clinical advantages over the subcuticular sutures. However, owing to the complexities associated with wound closure, future clinical and laboratory studies assessing their complication outlines must be examined before an optimum technique can be determined.

Subcuticular sutures versus staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications. Whether the use of staples or sutures makes a difference in abdominal surgery’s infection rate remains elusive.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized clinical trials comparing staples and sutures after abdominal surgeries. Eligibility criteria involved the SSI occurrence as the primary outcome and the incidence of wound dehiscence, closure time, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction as the secondary outcomes.

Results

Of the 278 studies identified, seven randomized controlled trials representing 3705 patients were included in this review. There was no significant difference in SSI rates between sutures and staples in general (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.79–1.22, I² = 44%, P = 0.1) or in a subgroup of gastrointestinal surgery, where subcuticular suturing was found with a comparable SSI risk with skin stapling (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66–1.09). Staple closure was associated with a shorter surgery duration, whereas sutures appeared to provide better cosmesis and patient satisfaction. Sutures and staples achieved a comparable incidence of dehiscence. There was no significant between-study publication bias.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated similar outcomes in SSI rate between subcuticular sutures and staples for skin closure in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Polymeric Tissue Adhesives

Polymeric tissue adhesives provide versatile materials for wound management and are widely used in a variety of medical settings ranging from minor to life-threatening tissue injuries. Compared to the traditional methods of wound closure (i.e., suturing and stapling), they are relatively easy to use, enable rapid application, and introduce minimal tissue damage. Furthermore, they can act as hemostats to control bleeding and provide a tissue-healing environment at the wound site. Despite their numerous current applications, tissue adhesives still face several limitations and unresolved challenges (e.g., weak adhesion strength and poor mechanical properties) that limit their use, leaving ample room for future improvements. Successful development of next-generation adhesives will likely require a holistic understanding of the chemical and physical properties of the tissue-adhesive interface, fundamental mechanisms of tissue adhesion, and requirements for specific clinical applications. In this review, we discuss a set of rational guidelines for design of adhesives, recent progress in the field along with examples of commercially available adhesives and those under development, tissue-specific considerations, and finally potential functions for future adhesives. Advances in tissue adhesives will open new avenues for wound care and potentially provide potent therapeutics for various medical applications.

Comparison of early and delayed removal of dressing following primary closure of clean and contaminated surgical wounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The usefulness of dressing a surgical wound beyond the first 24-48 h of surgery is currently a controversial issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the early and delayed removal of dressing following primary closure in the management of clean and contaminated surgical wounds. Systematic searches were conducted in various databases including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Embase from January, 1964 until October, 2019. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of published trials. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, we analysed 10 studies with 1,708 participants. All the studies were randomized controlled trials, while the majority of studies had unclear or high bias risks. Early dressing removal was favoured with respect to surgical site infection (pooled RR=0.89; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.29), patient's perception on safety (pooled RR=0.60; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.76) and comfort (pooled RR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.22), while the remaining outcomes favoured delayed dressing removal. However, none of the factors had statistically significant difference between two interventions except the patient's perception on safety. To summarize, delayed removal of dressing is not superior to early removal following primary closure of clean or clean-contaminated surgical wounds.

Perioperative routines and surgical techniques for saphenous vein harvesting in CABG surgery: a national cross-sectional study in Sweden

Background

The saphenous vein is the most commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Wound healing complications related to saphenous vein harvesting are common, with reported surgical site infection rates ranging from 2 to 20%. Patients’ risk factors, perioperative hygiene routines, and surgical technique play important roles in wound complications. Here we describe the perioperative routines and surgical methods of Swedish operating theatre (OT) nurses and cardiac surgeons.

Methods

A national cross-sectional survey with descriptive design was conducted to evaluate perioperative hygiene routines and surgical methods associated with saphenous vein harvesting in CABG. A web-based questionnaire was sent to OT nurses and cardiac surgeons at all eight hospitals performing CABG surgery in Sweden.

Results

Responses were received from all hospitals. The total response rate was 62/119 (52%) among OT nurses and 56/111 (50%) among surgeons.

Chlorhexidine 5 mg/mL in 70% ethanol was used at all eight hospitals. The OT nurses almost always (96.8%) performed the preoperative skin disinfection, usually for three to 5 minutes. Chlorhexidine was also commonly used before dressing the wound.

Conventional technique was used by 78.6% of the surgeons, “no-touch” by 30.4%, and both techniques by 9%. None of the surgeons used endoscopic vein harvesting. Type of suture and technique used for closing the wound differed markedly between the centres.

Conclusions

In this article we present insights into the hygiene routines and surgical methods currently used by OT nurses and cardiac surgeons in Sweden. The results indicate both similarities and differences between the centres. Local traditions might be the most important factors in determining which procedures are employed in the OT. There is a lack of evidence-based hygiene routines and surgical methods.

Use of flexible sensor to characterize biomechanics of canine skin

Background

Suture materials and techniques are frequently evaluated in ex vivo studies by comparing tensile strengths. However, the direct measurement techniques to obtain the tensile forces in canine skin are not available, and, therefore, the conditions suture lines undergo is unknown. A soft elastomeric capacitor is used to monitor deformation in the skin over time by sensing strain. This sensor was applied to a sample of canine skin to evaluate its capacity to sense strain in the sample while loaded in a dynamic material testing machine. The measured strain of the sensor was compared with the strain measured by the dynamic testing machine. The sample of skin was evaluated with and without the sensor adhered.

Results

In this study, the soft elastomeric capacitor was able to measure strain and a correlation was made to stress using a modified Kelvin-Voigt model for the canine skin sample. The sensor significantly increases the stiffness of canine skin when applied which required the derivation of mechanical models for interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

Flexible sensors can be applied to canine skin to investigate the inherent biomechanical properties. These sensors need to be lightweight and highly elastic to avoid interference with the stress across a suture line. The sensor studied here serves as a prototype for future sensor development and has demonstrated that a lightweight highly elastic sensor is needed to decrease the effect on the sensor/skin construct. Further studies are required for biomechanical characterization of canine skin.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1755-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparing the Tolerability of a Novel Wound Closure Device Using a Porcine Wound Model

Objective: To compare the tolerability and mechanical tensile strength of acute skin wounds closed with nylon suture plus a novel suture bridge device (SBD) with acute skin wounds closed with nylon suture in a porcine model. Approach: Four Yucatan pigs each received 12 4.5 cm full-thickness incisions that were closed with 1 of 4 options: Suture bridge with nylon, suture bridge with nylon and subdermal polyglactin, nylon simple interrupted, and nylon simple interrupted with subdermal polyglactin. Epithelial reaction, inflammation, and scarring were examined histologically at days 10 and 42. Wound strength was examined mechanically at days 10 and 42 on ex vivo wounds from euthanized pigs. Results: Histopathology in the suture entry/exit planes showed greater dermal inflammation with a simple interrupted nylon suture retained for 42 days compared with the SBD retained for 42 days (p < 0.03). While tensile wound strength in the device and suture groups were similar at day 10, wounds closed with the devices were nearly 8 times stronger at day 42 compared with day 10 (p < 0.001). Innovation: A novel SBD optimized for cutaneous wound closure that protects the skin surface from suture strands, forms a protective bridge over the healing wound edges, and knotlessly clamps sutures. Conclusion: This study suggests that the use of a SBD increases the tolerability of nylon sutures in porcine acute skin wound closures allowing for prolonged mechanical support of the wound. For slow healing wounds, this may prevent skin wound disruption, such as edge necrosis and dehiscence.

Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

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.

A randomized study comparing traditional monofilament knotted sutures with barbed knotless sutures for donor leg wound closure in coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES

Surgical knots on the suture line provide an anchoring function, but also represent a potential source of infection and irritation on the donor leg after coronary artery bypass surgery. Knotless barbed sutures were designed to prevent knot-related complications. This study compared knot-related wound complication rates between patients receiving traditional monofilament sutures and those receiving barbed knotless sutures for closure of the donor leg.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-two patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 70) received traditional monofilament sutures and Group 2 (n = 72) received barbed knotless sutures. All wounds were assessed on postoperative days 3 and 5 and weeks 2, 4 and 6 using a validated wound scoring system. Antibiotics usage and general practitioner and district nurse visits were recorded.

RESULTS

No demographic differences were observed between groups. Leg wound skin closure times were significantly shorter in Group 2 compared with Group 1 (P < 0.001). Group 1 demonstrated a greater incidence of excessive scarring (P < 0.001), itching (P < 0.001), irritation (P < 0.001) and adverse skin tissue reactions (P < 0.001) than Group 2. Fewer general practitioner visits were recorded in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (P = 0.051).

CONCLUSION

Knotless barbed suture usage significantly reduces the incidence of knot-related leg wound complications compared with traditional monofilament knotted sutures. This may be related to differences in the rate of absorption of the suture material or an associated decrease in the incidence of adverse skin tissue reactions that may delay postoperative wound healing.

Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2015 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.

Determining risk factors for surgical wound dehiscence: a literature review

Postoperative wound healing plays a significant role in facilitating a patient's recovery and rehabilitation. Surgical wound dehiscence (SWD) impacts on mortality and morbidity rates and significantly contributes to prolonged hospital stays and associated psychosocial stressors on individuals and their families. A narrative review of SWD was undertaken on English-only studies between 1945 and 2012 using three electronic databases Ovid CINHAL, Ovid Medline and Pubmed. The aim of this review was to identify predisposing factors for SWD and assessment tools to assist in the identification of at-risk patients. Key findings from the included 15 papers out of a search of 1045 revealed the most common risk factors associated with SWD including obesity and wound infection, particularly in the case of abdominal surgery. There is limited reporting of variables associated with SWD across other surgical domains and a lack of risk assessment tools. Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity in the definition of SWD in the literature. This review provides an overview of the available research and provides a basis for more rigorous analysis of factors that contribute to SWD.

Intracutaneous suture versus transcutaneous skin stapling for closure of midline or horizontal skin incision in elective abdominal surgery and their outcome on superficial surgical site infections--INTRANS: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are the third most frequent type of nosocomial infections. Evidence-based recommendations have been given regarding preoperative hospitalization, hygiene and air-conditioning, patient conditions, and wound dressing. However, no general recommendations concerning wound closure exist. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses suppose a benefit of intracutaneous suture compared to skin staples in orthopedic and obstetric surgery. Literature data for skin closure in elective abdominal surgery are still deficient.

METHODS/DESIGN

Patients scheduled for any elective abdominal surgery requiring midline or horizontal laparotomy are potentially eligible for the trial. Trial-specific exclusion criteria are date of admission exceeding four days prior to surgery, antibiotic treatment within the past 14 days, any previous midline or horizontal laparotomy in case the procedure requires the same skin incision as before, neurophysiological deficits or severe psychiatric or neurologic diseases that do not allow an informed consent or compliance, and participation in any other interventional trial with interference of intervention and outcome. The trial is created for process innovation within standardized surgical procedures. It is designed as a prospective randomized controlled single center trial in a parallel design including an active comparator and an intervention group. The intervention addresses the closure of skin after the main surgical procedure: intracutaneous suture in the intervention group and transcutaneous skin stapling in the control group. The rate of superficial surgical site infections is defined as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints are time for skin closure, satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome 30 days after surgery, prolongation of hospital stay, and duration of sick-leave due to surgical site infections. The primary efficacy analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle. A χ2 test will be applied.

DISCUSSION

The trial is expected to balance the shortcomings of the current evidence. It will help to define the gold standard for wound closure in elective abdominal surgery. Patients' safety and quality of life are assumed to be enhanced. Therapy costs are likely to be reduced and health care optimized.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00004542.

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures

Objective

To systematically evaluate the evidence across surgical specialties as to whether staples or sutures better improve patient and provider level outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis of pooled estimates.

Results

Eleven systematic reviews, including 13,661 observations, met the inclusion criteria. In orthopaedic surgery sutures were found to be preferable, and for appendicial stump sutures were protective against both surgical site infection and post surgical complications. However, staples were protective against leak in ilecolic anastomosis. For all other surgery types the evidence was inconclusive with wider confidence intervals including the possibly of preferential outcomes for surgical site infection or post surgical complication for either staples or sutures. Whilst reviews showed substantial variation in mean differences in operating time (I² 94%) there was clear evidence of a reduction in average operating time across all surgery types. Few reviews reported on length of stay, but the three reviews that did (I² 0%, including 950 observations) showed a non significant reduction in length of stay, but showed evidence of publication bias (P-value for Egger test 0.05).

Conclusions

Evidence across surgical specialties indicates that wound closure with staples reduces the mean operating time. Despite including several thousand observations, no clear evidence of superiority emerged for either staples or sutures with respect to surgical site infection, post surgical complications, or length of stay.

Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2013 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.