Combined topical povidone-iodine and systemic antibiotics in postappendicectomy wound sepsis

Effects of povidone-iodine wound irrigation on surgical site infection in gastroenterological surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The irrigation efficacy of a povidone-iodine solution to prevent surgical site infection is still controversial. We assessed the irrigation effect with a povidone-iodine solution on the incidence of surgical site infection after gastroenterological surgery.

METHODS

This study is a single-center, prospective, randomized, blinded-end point superiority trial for surgical wound irrigation. Patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 replacement ratio using computer-generated randomization. Patients were grouped according to their surgical wound treatment into the control group using the normal sterile saline and the povidone-iodine group using 10% povidone-iodine solution after the NS solution. The main finding was 30-day surgical site infections assessed in the full analysis set.

RESULTS

From November 2020 to December 2022, 697 of 894 patients were eligible for the study, among which 347 were in the povidone-iodine group and 350 in the control group. Thirty-day surgical site infections occurred in 100 (14%) patients-54 (16%) in the povidone-iodine group and 46 (13%) in the control group (odds ratio, 1.229; 95% CI, 0.800-1.889; P = .406). Superficial incisional surgical site infections occurred in 30 (9%) and 15 (4%) patients, respectively (odds ratio, 2.154; 95% CI, 1.134-4.090; P = .026). Only 3 patients (1%) in the control group developed adverse skin reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the irrigation efficacy of povidone-iodine for surgical site infection prevention compared to control in gastroenterological surgery. Povidone-iodine wound irrigation has shown no additional beneficial effect on the occurrence of surgical site infections.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Reduce Surgical Site Infections after CRS/HIPEC

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a common cause of morbidity after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal malignancy. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been proposed as a method to reduce the rates of SSIs; however, there is paucity in the literature on the efficacy in this population. The goal of this study was to determine whether routine use of NPWT in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC could reduce the risk of developing SSI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective before-after study to assess the rates of SSI with NPWT compared with a standard postoperative surgical dressing (SSD) in all patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC from November 2013 to December 2021 at a single tertiary care center. The primary outcome was rate of SSI. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate for risk factors for SSI.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients were treated with CRS/HIPEC over the study period. Seventy patients had placement of SSD, and 108 patients had placement of NPWT. Rates of SSI were 11.4% (8/70) and 5.6% (6/108) in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.16). On multivariate analysis, patients treated with NPWT had a significantly lower risk of developing an SSI (OR 0.24 [0.06, 0.92], p = 0.037). Patients living >50 km from the hospital had significantly higher risk of developing SSI (OR 2.03 [1.09, 3.78], p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that routine use of NPWT can reduce the risk of developing an SSI in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal malignancy.

Comparing the Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Versus Normal Saline in Laparotomy Wound Irrigation to Prevent Surgical Site Infections: A Meta-Analysis

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a known complication of laparotomies and intra-abdominal surgical operations leading to remarkable consequences on mortality, morbidity, and expenses. The study aims to assess the efficiency of irrigating laparotomy incision sites with povidone-iodine (PVI) or normal saline (NS) in diminishing the rate of SSIs in patients undergoing gastrointestinal operations for varying indications. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) highlighting the contribution of laparotomy wound irrigation with PVI in opposition to NS in patients planned for laparotomy addressing numerous gastrointestinal issues, and their role in reducing SSI risk were obtained via searching of standard electronic medical databases. The analysis was conducted by utilizing meta-analysis principles procured by statistical software RevMan version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). The yield of medical databases exploration and inspection was 13 RCTs on 3816 patients who underwent laparotomy for different gastrointestinal operations. There were 1900 patients in the PVI group whereas 1916 patients received NS wound irrigations preceding closure of the laparotomy skin wound. In the random effects model analysis, the use of PVI for laparotomy wound irrigation was associated with the reduced risk (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% CI (0.30, 0.98), Z = 2.04, P = 0.04) of SSIs. Nevertheless, there was outstanding heterogeneity (Tau2 = 70; chi2 = 40.19, df = 12; P = 0.0001; I2 = 70%) among the included studies. According to the comprehensive analysis outcomes, it has been clinically proven that the use of PVI is highly effective in reducing the occurrence of SSIs, as well as their subsequent implications.

Effect of wound irrigation on the prevention of surgical site infections: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of wound irrigation on the prevention of surgical site infections. A systematic literature search up to January 2022 was done and 24 studies included 4967 subjects under surgery at the start of the study; antibiotic irrigation was used with 1372 of them, 1261 were aqueous povidone‐iodine irrigation, and 2334 were saline irrigation or no irrigation for surgical site infections prevention in all surgical populations. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of different wound irrigation on the prevention of surgical site infections by the dichotomous method with a random or fixed‐influence model. Antibiotic irrigation had significantly lower surgical site infections in all surgical populations (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36‐0.62, P < .001) compared with saline irrigation or no irrigation for the subject under surgery. Aqueous povidone‐iodine irrigation had significantly lower surgical site infections in all surgical populations (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20‐0.81, P = .01) compared with saline irrigation or no irrigation for the subject under surgery. Antibiotic irrigation and aqueous povidone‐iodine irrigation significantly lowered surgical site infections in all surgical populations compared with saline irrigation or no irrigation for the subject under surgery. Further studies are required.

Intraoperative and Postoperative Infection Prevention

Implementation of strategies for prevention of surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection is gaining further attention. We provide an overview of the pertinent evidence-based guidelines for infection prevention from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection. Future work is needed to ascertain clinical efficacy, optimal combinations, and the cost-effectiveness of certain measures.

A Meta-analysis of Prophylaxis of Surgical Site Infections with Topical Application of Povidone Iodine Before Primary Closure

BACKGROUND

Povidone iodine (PVI) is a widely used antiseptic solution among surgeons. A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to establish whether application of PVI before wound closure could reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rates.

METHODS

Systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2017, with no language restrictions. Only RCTs were retrieved. The primary outcome was the SSI rate. Meta-analysis was complemented with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

A total of 7601 patients collected from 16 RCTs were analyzed. A reduction in overall SSI rate was found (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.85, P = 0.002, I² = 65%), which was attributed to patients undergoing elective operations (n = 2358) and mixed elective/urgent operations (n = 2019). When RCTs of uncertain quality (n = 9) were excluded, the use of PVI before wound closure (n = 4322 patients) was not associated with a significant reduction of SSI (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.20, P = 0.29, I² = 51%) and was only significant in clean wounds (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.70, P = 0.008, I² = 0%). For the primary outcome, the TSA calculation using a relative risk reduction of 19% and an 11% proportion of control event rate (CER) with 51% of I², the accrued information size (n = 4322) was 32.8% of the estimated optimal information size (n = 13,148).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence for a strong recommendation of topical PVI before wound closure to prevent SSI.

Intraoperative povidone-iodine irrigation for infection prevention

Although prevention of infection following arthroplasty requires a multifaceted approach, the use of intraoperative irrigation is an important component of any protocol. Recent clinical practice guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, World Health Organization, and International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection advocate the use of a dilute povidone-iodine solution prior to wound closure. Our experience suggests that this practice is safe, inexpensive, and easily implemented. The present article describes our institutional irrigation protocol and reviews the current literature regarding povidone-iodine solutions.

Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after an operative procedure. A preventable complication, they are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes, increased mortality, morbidity and reoperation rates. Surgical wound irrigation is an intraoperative technique, which may reduce the rate of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and wound exudate. Irrigation can be undertaken prior to wound closure or postoperatively. Intracavity lavage is a similar technique used in operations that expose a bodily cavity; such as procedures on the abdominal cavity and during joint replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound irrigation and intracavity lavage on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing surgical procedures in which the use of a particular type of intraoperative washout (irrigation or lavage) was the only systematic difference between groups, and in which wounds underwent primary closure. The primary outcomes were SSI and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were mortality, use of systemic antibiotics, antibiotic resistance, adverse events, re-intervention, length of hospital stay, and readmissions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage. Two review authors also undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We calculated risk ratios or differences in means with 95% confidence intervals where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs with 14,738 participants. Studies assessed comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation, between antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation, between different antibiotics, different antiseptics or different non-antibacterial agents, or between different methods of irrigation delivery. No studies compared antiseptic with antibiotic irrigation. Surgical site infectionIrrigation compared with no irrigation (20 studies; 7192 participants): there is no clear difference in risk of SSI between irrigation and no irrigation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.11; I2 = 28%; 14 studies, 6106 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 13 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with irrigation compared with no irrigation; the 95% CI spanned from 31 fewer to 10 more SSIs. This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.Antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (36 studies, 6163 participants): there may be a lower incidence of SSI in participants treated with antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75; I2 = 53%; 30 studies, 5141 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 60 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with antibacterial irrigation than with non-antibacterial (95% CI 35 fewer to 78 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and suspected publication bias.Comparison of irrigation of two agents of the same class (10 studies; 2118 participants): there may be a higher incidence of SSI in participants treated with povidone iodine compared with superoxidised water (Dermacyn) (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.47; low-certainty evidence from one study, 190 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 95 more SSIs per 1000 people treated with povidone iodine than with superoxidised water (95% CI 3 more to 341 more). All other comparisons found low- or very low-certainty evidence of no clear difference between groups.Comparison of two irrigation techniques: two studies compared standard (non-pulsed) methods with pulsatile methods. There may, on average, be fewer SSIs in participants treated with pulsatile methods compared with standard methods (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62; I2 = 0%; two studies, 484 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 109 fewer SSIs occurring per 1000 with pulsatile irrigation compared with standard (95% CI 62 fewer to 134 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded twice for risks of bias across multiple domains. Wound dehiscenceFew studies reported wound dehiscence. No comparison had evidence for a difference between intervention groups. This included comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence); antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation (three studies, very low-certainty evidence) and pulsatile and standard irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomesFew studies reported outcomes such as use of systemic antibiotics and antibiotic resistance and they were poorly and incompletely reported. There was limited reporting of mortality; this may have been partially due to failure to specify zero events in participants at low risk of death. Adverse event reporting was variable and often limited to individual event types. The evidence for the impact of interventions on length of hospital stay was low or moderate certainty; where differences were seen they were too small to be clinically important.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for intracavity lavage and wound irrigation is generally of low certainty. Therefore where we identified a possible difference in the incidence of SSI (in comparisons of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions, and pulsatile versus standard methods) these should be considered in the context of uncertainty, particularly given the possibility of publication bias for the comparison of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions. Clinicians should also consider whether the evidence is relevant to the surgical populations under consideration, the varying reporting of other prophylactic antibiotics, and concerns about antibiotic resistance.We did not identify any trials that compared an antibiotic with an antiseptic. This gap in the direct evidence base may merit further investigation, potentially using network meta-analysis; to inform the direction of new primary research. Any new trial should be adequately powered to detect a difference in SSIs in eligible participants, should use robust research methodology to reduce the risks of bias and internationally recognised criteria for diagnosis of SSI, and should have adequate duration and follow-up.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. To reduce SSIs, prophylactic intra-operative wound irrigation (pIOWI) has been advocated, although the results to date are equivocal. To develop recommendations for the new World Health Organization (WHO) SSI prevention guidelines, a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted on the effectiveness of pIOWI using different agents as a means of reducing SSI.

METHODS

The PUBMED, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and WHO databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either pIOWI with no pIOWI or with pIOWI using different solutions and techniques were retrieved with SSI as the primary outcome. Meta-analyses were performed, and odds ratios (OR) and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were suitable for analysis, and a distinction was made between intra-peritoneal, mediastinal, and incisional wound irrigation. A low quality of evidence demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for incisional wound irrigation with an aqueous povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution in clean and clean contaminated wounds (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.73; p = 0.007); 50 fewer SSIs per 1,000 procedures (from 19 fewer to 64 fewer)). Antibiotic irrigation had no significant effect in reducing SSIs (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.64-2.12; p = 0.63).

CONCLUSION

Low-quality evidence suggests considering the use of prophylactic incisional wound irrigation to prevent SSI with an aqueous povidone-iodine solution. Antibiotic irrigation does not show a benefit and therefore is discouraged.

New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common health-care-associated infections in developing countries, but they also represent a substantial epidemiological burden in high-income countries. The prevention of these infections is complex and requires the integration of a range of preventive measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations in national guidelines have been identified. Considering the prevention of SSIs as a priority for patient safety, WHO has developed evidence-based and expert consensus-based recommendations on the basis of an extensive list of preventive measures. We present in this Review 16 recommendations specific to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The WHO recommendations were developed with a global perspective and they take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality level, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences.

Intra-operative wound irrigation to reduce surgical site infections after abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains to be one of the most frequent infectious complications following abdominal surgery. Prophylactic intra-operative wound irrigation (IOWI) before skin closure has been proposed to reduce bacterial wound contamination and the risk of SSI. However, current recommendations on its use are conflicting especially concerning antibiotic and antiseptic solutions because of their potential tissue toxicity and enhancement of bacterial drug resistances.

METHODS

To analyze the existing evidence for the effect of IOWI with topical antibiotics, povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solutions or saline on the incidence of SSI following open abdominal surgery, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Forty-one RCTs reporting primary data of over 9000 patients were analyzed. Meta-analysis on the effect of IOWI with any solution compared to no irrigation revealed a significant benefit in the reduction of SSI rates (OR = 0.54, 95 % confidence Interval (CI) [0.42; 0.69], p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed that this effect was strongest in colorectal surgery and that IOWI with antibiotic solutions had a stronger effect than irrigation with PVP-I or saline. However, all of the included trials were at considerable risk of bias according to the quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that IOWI before skin closure represents a pragmatic and economical approach to reduce postoperative SSI after abdominal surgery and that antibiotic solutions seem to be more effective than PVP-I solutions or simple saline, and it might be worth to re-evaluate their use for specific indications.

[Use of topic iodine in acute wounds]

The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of topic iodine and/or compounds in the treatment of acute wounds. The clinical trials were searched at the Cochrane's database using the following descriptors: iodine, acute wound, treatment, healing, infection, surgery, surgical. Twenty studies (52.6%) out of 38 met the criteria for inclusion. The articles were analyzed regarding journal and study characteristics and classified into five groups: iodine versus other topic agents (4/20%); iodine versus types of dressings (1/5%); iodine versus saline solution (5/25%); iodine versus no iodine (8/40%); and iodine at different concentrations (2/10%). Favorable results for the use of iodine and/or compounds occurred in 45% of the studies. Three out of 5 studies showed favorable results for healing and prevention of infection and 9 out of 15 studies were not favorable when only infection prevention was investigated.

Topical Application of Bacitracin Ointment Is Associated with Decreased Risk of Mediastinitis after Median Sternotomy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of mediastinitis after open-heart surgery is infrequent but dreaded as it carries a high morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact that topical antibacterials would have on the postoperative mediastinitis rate.

METHODS

Data were collected from 2455 consecutive patients who underwent sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass for both valvar and ischemic heart disease. Prior to 1999, patients (n = 1036) underwent surgery with standard perioperative intravenous antibiotics but no application of bacitracin. After 1999, patients (n = 1419) underwent surgery with intravenous antibiotics and application of bacitracin ointment to the sternotomy incision after closure.

RESULTS

Cases of mediastinitis occurred in 12 patients (1.2%) not treated with bacitracin, which required re-exploration, sternectomy, and soft tissue closure of the mediastinum. Alternatively, 3 patients (0.2%) in the group treated with bacitracin developed mediastinitis (P < .01). Therefore, the use of topical antibacterials was associated with a 6-fold reduction in the risk of mediastinitis after cardiac surgery. This significant difference in the infection rate was observed even though the percentage of patients with risk factors for mediastinitis was equal to greater than the group not treated with bacitracin. Non-bacitracin versus bacitracin: diabetics, 298 versus 484; emergency operations, 24 versus 50; bilateral internal thoracic grafts, 28 versus 29; and obesity (body mass index >30), 294 versus 396.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of topical antibacterials is associated with a decrease in the risk of mediastinitis after cardiac surgery.

Gangrenous and perforated appendicitis: a meta-analytic study of 2532 patients indicates that the incision should be closed primarily

BACKGROUND

Surgical incisions after appendectomy for complicated (gangrenous or perforated) acute appendicitis are often managed with delayed closure (DC) rather than primary closure (PC). This study synthesizes the results of other studies in the surgical literature and supports the routine use of PC.

METHODS

Studies dealing with complicated appendicitis were reviewed to assess the results of PC in comparison with DC. The rate of incision (wound) infection in groups of patients managed by PC and DC were compared with the use of a statistical technique that defined the probability of expected results by incorporating data derived from all of the various study groups.

RESULTS

Of the 2532 patients who had been treated for complicated appendicitis and who were assessed, 1724 patients underwent PC and 808 patients underwent DC. The rate of incision infection was 4.7% and 4.6% in the PC and DC groups, respectively. With a 95% confidence interval, there was no demonstrable difference between the 2 types of operative site management (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

PC of the skin and subcutaneous tissue after appendectomy for gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, combined with the use of antibiotic therapy in the perioperative period, is not associated with an increased risk of incision infection when compared with DC.

Combined topical and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in acute appendicitis

Two hundred forty-six patients with acute appendicitis were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group of 120 patients received systemic clindamycin preoperatively. Another group of 126 patients received, in addition to systemic clindamycin, a solution of topical ampicillin applied to subcutaneous tissues. No differences were found in the characteristics of the two groups. Combined prophylaxis with clindamycin and ampicillin significantly reduced wound infection to 4%, compared with clindamycin alone (p less than 0.02). A decrease in the surgical wound infection rate in the group treated with clindamycin and ampicillin was mainly observed in patients with advanced (gangrenous and perforated) appendicitis (p less than 0.05). A significant decrease in wound infection rates in patients with positive culture results was also found. We conclude that prophylaxis with a combination of systemic clindamycin and topical ampicillin solution, when compared with clindamycin alone, more effectively prevents wound infection after emergency appendectomy, especially in patients with serious wound contamination.