Cost analysis of utilising wound edge protector in open appendicectomy to prevent surgical site infection

Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic literature search up to June 2022 was performed and 6026 subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery at the baseline of the studies; 3090 of them were using the wound protector, and 2936 were using no wound protector. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83, P = .004), and dual-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.56, P < .001) in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors, and dual-ring wound protectors in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 5 out of 28 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. The effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing infection of the surgical sites is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of a wound edge protector (WEP) in reducing SSI rates after abdominal surgery.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published up to September 2021. Publications were retrieved if they contain primary data on the use of WEPs in reducing SSI compared with standard care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed for different WEP types, surgical sites, and levels of contamination. The outcome of interest was a clinically defined SSI. Qualitative variables were pooled using risk ratios (RRs).

Results

Twenty-two eligible randomized clinical trials involving 4492 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WEP was associated with the reduced incidence of overall SSI (RR = 0.66; 95 per cent c.i. 0.53 to 0.83; P = 0.0003), and superficial SSI (RR = 0.59; 95 per cent c.i. 0.38 to 0.91; P = 0.02). In addition, WEP also successfully reduced the risk of SSI in clean-contaminated wounds (RR = 0.61; 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02) as well as in contaminated wounds (RR = 0.47; 95 per cent c.i. 0.33 to 0.67; P < 0.0001); however, WEP did not reduce SSI incidence in colorectal surgery (RR = 0.68; 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.05).

Conclusion

This study suggests that WEP was efficient in reducing superficial SSI. Both double-ringed and single-ringed devices were efficient in reducing SSI. WEP was effective in reducing SSI incidence in clean-contaminated and contaminated surgery; however, its use does not reduce the SSI rate in colorectal surgery.