Effect of peritoneal lavage with clindamycin-gentamicin solution on infections after elective colorectal cancer surgery

Reducing the incidence of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair: Outcomes from the RINSE randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

The clinical and financial impact of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair is significant. Here we investigate the impact of dual antibiotic irrigation on SSI after VHR.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective randomized control trial of open retromuscular VHR with mesh. Patients were randomized to gentamicin ​+ ​clindamycin (G ​+ ​C) (n ​= ​125) vs saline (n ​= ​125) irrigation at time of mesh placement. Primary outcome was 30-day SSI.

RESULTS

No significant difference was seen in SSI between control and antibiotic irrigation (9.91 vs 9.09 ​%; p ​= ​0.836). No differences were seen in secondary outcomes: SSO (11.71 vs 13.64 ​%; p ​= ​0.667); 90-day SSO (11.1 vs 13.9 ​%; p ​= ​0.603); 90-day SSI (6.9 vs 3.8 ​%; p ​= ​0.389); SSIPI (7.21 vs 7.27 ​%, p ​= ​0.985); SSOPI (3.6 vs 3.64 ​%; p ​= ​0.990); 30-day readmission (9.91 vs 6.36 ​%; p ​= ​0.335); reoperation (5.41 vs 0.91 ​%; p ​= ​0.056).

CONCLUSION

Dual antibiotic irrigation with G ​+ ​C did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection during open retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

A meta-analysis examined the effect of topical nursing application of antimicrobial as a prophylaxis for the stoppage of surgical wound infection in colorectal surgery

To assess the impact of topical antimicrobial (TA) as a prophylaxis for the stoppage of surgical wound infection (SWI) in colorectal surgery (CS), we lead a meta-analysis. 9160 participants with CS were enrolled in the chosen studies; 4719 of them used TA, while 4441 served as controls. To assess the effectiveness of TA application in lowering SWIs following CS, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with a dichotomous technique with a fixed- or random-effect model. Significantly lower SWIs post CS for TA as whole (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; P < .001), gentamicin collagen sponge and beads (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; P = .01), triclosan impregnated fascial suture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84; P = .005), antibiotic powder, ointment, lavage, or injection for the abdominal wound (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.59; P < .001), and ionised silver dressing on the closed abdominal wound (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; P = .003) compared to control. Significantly lower SWIs post CS for TA as a whole, gentamicin collagen sponge and beads, triclosan impregnated fascial sutures, antibiotic powder, ointment, lavage, or injection for the abdominal wound, and ionised silver dressing on the closed abdominal wound compared with control. The low sample size of 8 out of the 39 included studies in this meta-analysis calls for precaution when analysing the outcomes.

Impact of large amount of intra-abdominal lavage on surveillance of surgical site infection after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

In hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgery, the role and significance of intra-abdominal lavage (IAL) for surgical site infection (SSI) is controversial.

METHODS

This prospective study was performed between July 2020 and July 2022. A total of 150 patients, 10-L IAL was performed. The lavage fluid at 1-L, 5-L, and 10-L was subjected to bacterial culture examination. Risk factors for SSI were evaluated.

RESULTS

Bacterial positivity rate significantly decreased as follows: 1-L, 36% (n = 54); 5-L, 27% (n = 41); 10-L, 23% (n = 35) (36% vs 23%, p = .001). Patients with positive lavage fluid culture at 10-L had significantly higher incidence of both incisional (37% vs 6%, p < .01) and organ/space (54% vs 3%, p < .01) SSI. Multivariate analysis revealed positivity for bacterial culture at 10-L as the strongest independent risk factor for incisional SSI (OR 13.0, 95% CI: 3.86-43.6, p < .01), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 11.7, 95% CI: 3.03-45.6, p < .01). Likewise, in organ/space SSI, positivity for bacterial culture at 10-L was the strongest independent risk factor (OR 48.9, 95% CI:12.1-197.7, p < .01), followed by digestive reconstruction (OR 5.20, 95% CI: 1.45-18.6, p = .01).

CONCLUSION

IAL decreased the intraperitoneal contamination rate in a volume-dependent manner and can be useful in the surveillance of SSI development in HBP surgery.

Prophylactic onlay mesh at emergency laparotomy: promising early outcomes with long-acting synthetic resorbable mesh

Background

Careful surgical strategy is paramount in balancing the prevention of fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia (IH) and fear of additional mesh‐related wound complications post‐laparotomy. This study aims to review early outcomes of patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy with prophylactic TIGR® mesh, used to reduce early fascial dehiscence and potential subsequent IH.

Method

A retrospective, ethically approved review of 24 consecutive patients undergoing prophylactic TIGR® mesh placement during emergency laparotomies by a single surgeon between January 2017 and June 2021 at a University Hospital. A standardized approach included onlay positioning of the mesh, small‐bite fascial closure, and a wound bundle. We recorded patient demographics, operative indications, findings, degree of peritonitis, postoperative complications, and mortality.

Result

The study included 24 patients; 16/24 (66.6%) were female and median age was 72.5 (range 31–86); 14/24 patients were ASA grade III or greater; 4/24 patients (16.6%) developed six complications and 3/6 occurred in a single patient. Complications included subphrenic abscess, seroma, intrabdominal hematoma, enterocutaneous fistula leading to deep wound infection and small bowel perforation. Five (20.8%) patients died in hospital; central venous catheter sepsis (n = 1), fungal septicaemia (n = 1) and multiorgan failure (n = 3). Surgical site infection and seroma rates were low, occurring in 2/24 patients (4% each).

Conclusion

This study has identified that prophylactic onlay mesh in patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy is not associated with significant wound infection or seroma when used with an active wound bundle. The wider use of TIGR® to prevent fascial dehiscence and potential long‐term IH prevention should be considered.

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.

Initial Outcomes of a Novel Irrigating Wound Protector for Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colectomies

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) rates in elective colorectal surgery remain high due to intraoperative exposure of colonic bacteria at the surgical site. We aimed to evaluate 30-day SSI outcomes of a novel wound retractor that combines barrier protection with continuous wound irrigation in elective colorectal resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort-matched analysis included all patients undergoing elective colorectal resection utilizing the novel irrigating wound protector (IWP) from April 2015 to July 2019. A control cohort of patients who underwent the same procedures with a standard wound protector over the same time period were also identified. Patients from both groups were matched for procedure type, procedure approach, pathology requiring operation, age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes, smoker status, hypertension, presence of disseminated cancer, current steroid or immunosuppressant use, wound classification, and American Society of Anesthesiologist classification. SSI frequency, SSI subtype (superficial, deep, or organ space), hospital length of stay (LOS) and associated procedure were tabulated through 30 postoperative days. Fisher's exact test and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to compare SSI rates and estimate cost between both groups.

RESULTS

The IWP group had 41 patients. The control group had 82 patients. Control-matched variables were similar for both groups. 30-day SSI rates were significantly lower in the IWP group (P=0.0298). length of stay was significantly shorter in the IWP group (P=0.0150). The NNT for the IWP to prevent one episode of SSI was 8.2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel IWP device shows promise to reducing the risk of SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

Double-Volume Intraoperative Lavage Reduce Bacterial Contamination After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

To clarify whether double-volume peritoneal lavage can decrease the risk of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-nine patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and intraoperative peritoneal lavage using 6000 mL of saline before abdominal closure were studied retrospectively. Bacterial cultures of the lavage fluid were taken twice, after irrigation using 3000 mL of saline and then after an additional 3000 mL of saline. Bacterial culture of the drainage fluid was taken on day 1, and the relationship between the results of bacterial cultures and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was examined.

RESULTS

Double amount of peritoneal lavage significantly decreased the incidence of positive bacterial cultures than single amount of peritoneal lavage (45% vs. 29%, P < .05). Multivariate analysis showed that positive bacterial culture of drainage fluid on day 1 and main pancreatic duct size (<3 mm) were independent risk factors for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. A positive bacterial culture of the final lavage fluid and preoperative biliary drainage were independent factors related to a positive bacterial culture on day 1.

DISCUSSION

A positive bacterial culture on day 1 is an independent risk factor for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Double-volume intraperitoneal lavage may be effective for reducing the incidence of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Intra-Cavity Lavage and Wound Irrigation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes. Intra-operative surgical site irrigation and intra-cavity lavage may reduce the risk of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and site exudate. Irrigation with antibiotic or antiseptic solutions may further reduce the risk of SSI because of bacteriocidal properties. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing irrigation solutions, but important comparisons (e.g., antibiotic vs. antiseptic irrigation) are absent. We use systematic review-based network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs to compare irrigation solutions for prevention of SSI. Methods: We used Cochrane methodology and included all RCTs of participants undergoing a surgical procedure with primary site closure, in which method of irrigation was the only systematic difference between groups. We used a random effects Bayesian NMA to create a connected network of comparisons. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) of SSI, where OR <1 indicates a beneficial effect. Results: We identified 42 eligible RCTs with 11,726 participants. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias. The RCTs included groups given no irrigation or non-antibacterial, antiseptic, or antibiotic irrigation. There was substantial heterogeneity, and a random effects model was selected. Relative to non-antibacterial irrigation, mean OR of SSI was 0.439 (95% credible interval: 0.282, 0.667) for antibiotic irrigation and 0.573 (0.321, 0.953) for antiseptic agents. No irrigation was similar to non-antibacterial irrigation (OR 0.959 [0.555, 1.660]). Antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation were ranked as most effective for preventing SSIs; this conclusion was robust to potential bias. Conclusions: Our NMA found that antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation had the lowest odds of SSI. There was high heterogeneity, however, and studies were at high risk of bias. A large RCT directly comparing antibiotic irrigation with both antiseptic and non-antibacterial irrigation is needed to define the standard of care for SSI prevention by site irrigation.

Use of Topical Antibiotics before Primary Incision Closure to Prevent Surgical Site Infection: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) remains a concern for surgeons because of the negative impact on outcomes and health care costs. Our purpose was to assess whether topical antibiotics before primary incision closure reduced the rate of SSIs. Methods: Systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception to January 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved. The primary outcome was the SSI rate. Meta-analysis was complemented with trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results: Thirty-five RCTs (10,870 patients) were included. Only β-lactams and aminoglycosides were used. A substantial reduction of the incidence of SSIs with the application of antibiotic agents before incision closure (risk ratio [RR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.64) was found, which remained in the analysis of 12 RCTs after removal of studies of uncertain quality. The use of β-lactams was effective to reduce SSI in elective surgery only (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.85). In clean-contaminated fields and as an irrigation solution, β-lactams did not reduce the risk of SSI. Aminoglycosides were not effective (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.10). After TSA, the evidence accumulated was far below the optimal information size. The heterogeneity of studies was high and methodological quality of most RCTs included in the meta-analysis was uncertain. Conclusions: Results of this meta-analysis show the data present in the literature are not sufficiently robust and, therefore, the use of topical β-lactams or aminoglycosides before incision closure to reduce SSI cannot be recommended or excluded.

Antibiotic Irrigation of the Surgical Site Decreases Incidence of Surgical Site Infection after Open Ventral Hernia Repair

Surgical site infections (SSI) are common complications after open ventral hernia repair (OVHR), potentially requiring further intervention. Antibiotic lavage before abdominal closure has been shown to lower the incidence in intra-abdominal and soft tissue SSI. A retrospective review of OVHR was performed with mesh at Greenville Health System Hernia Center between 2008 and 2017. Patients were divided into three groups, receiving no antibiotic irrigation (Grp 1, n = 260), gentamicin alone (Grp 2, n = 263), or gentamicin 1 clindamycin (G 1 C) irrigation (Grp 3, n = 299). Differences in categorical variables among the three groups were tested using chi-squared or Fischer's exact test (for n < 5). Analysis of continuous variables was performed using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in length of stay. Logistic regression was performed using all clinically relevant variables to determine the effects of irrigation on SSI. Incidence of surgical site occurrence was significantly lower after G 1 C irrigation (Grp 1, 28.1%; Grp 2, 35.4%; Grp 3, 19.7%; P < 0.001). Incidence of SSI was significantly lower after G 1 C irrigation, but not G alone (Grp 1, 16.5%; Grp 2, 15.2%; and Grp 3, 5.4%; P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated significantly increased SSI with contaminated wounds (OR 2.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–6.21), dirty wounds (OR 3.84; 95% CI 1.49–9.69), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 3.70; 95% CI 2.16–6.38), as expected. Use of G 1 C was an independent predictor of decreased SSI (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16–0.67). Irrigation with a combined G 1 C antibiotic irrigation significantly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection after OVHR with mesh.

Effect of the application of a bundle of three measures (intraperitoneal lavage with antibiotic solution, fascial closure with Triclosan-coated sutures and Mupirocin ointment application on the skin staples) on the surgical site infection after elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundles include the simultaneous use of different measures, which individually have demonstrated an effect on prevention of SSI. The implementation of bundles can yield superior results to the implementation of individual measures. The aim of this study was to address the effect of the application of a bundle including intraperitoneal lavage with antibiotic solution, fascial closure with Triclosan-coated sutures and Mupirocin ointment application on the skin staples, on the surgical site infection after elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized study was performed, including patients with diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms and plans to undergo an elective laparoscopic surgery. The patients were randomized into two groups: those patients following standard bundles (Group 1) and those ones following the experimental bundle with three additional measures, added to the standard bundle. Incisional and organ space SSI were investigated. The study was assessor-blinded.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included in the study, 99 in each group. The incisional SSI rate was 16% in Group 1 and 2% in Group 2 [p = 0.007; RR = 5.6; CI 95% (1.4-17.8)]. The organ-space SSI rate was 4% in Group 1 and 0% in Group 2 [p = 0.039; RR = 1.7; CI 95% (1.1-11.6)]. Median hospital stay was 5.5 days in Group 1 and 4 days in Group 2 (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of intraperitoneal lavage with antibiotic solution, fascial closure with Triclosan-coated sutures and Mupirocin ointment application on the skin staples, to a standard bundle of SSI prevention, reduces the incisional and organ-space SSI and consequently the hospital stay, after elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03081962).

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.

Reducing colorectal surgical site infections: a novel, resident-driven, quality initiative

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) cause significant patient morbidity and increase costs. This work prospectively examines our institutional effort to reduce SSIs through a resident-driven quality initiative.

METHODS

A general surgery resident-championed, evidenced-based care bundle for patients undergoing colorectal surgery at a single academic institution was developed using attending mentorship. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definitions for SSIs were used. Data were collected prospectively and bundle compliance was monitored using a checklist. The primary outcome compared SSIs before and after implementation.

RESULTS

In the 2 years preceding standardization, 489 colorectal surgery cases were performed. SSIs occurred in 68 patients (13.9% SSI rate). Following implementation of the bundle, 212 cases were performed with 10 SSIs (4.7% SSI rate, P < .01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found a decrease in superficial and overall SSIs (odds ratio .17, 95% confidence interval .05 to .59; odds ratio .31, 95% confidence interval .14 to .68).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate that resident-driven initiatives to improve quality of care can be a swift and effective way to enact change. We observed significantly decreased SSIs with a renewed focus on evidence-based, standardized patient care.

Antimicrobial Formulation and Delivery in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection

BACKGROUND

A number of adjunct antimicrobial measures have been studied in an attempt to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rates. In addition to parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis, these measures include oral antibiotics in bowel preparation for colorectal surgery, antiseptic/antimicrobial irrigation, antimicrobial sutures, local antibiotics, skin incision antibacterial sealants, and antimicrobial dressings. It is the purpose of this review to study the evidence behind each of these measures and to evaluate relevant data for recommendations in each area.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature through PubMed was performed.

RESULTS

Need for adequate dosing and re-dosing of intravenous peri-operative antibiotics, duration of antibiotic usage past wound closure, and the use of antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery are well defined in the published literature. However, data on local antimicrobial measures remain controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper dosing and re-dosing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics should become standard practice. Continuation of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis beyond wound closure is unnecessary in clean cases and remains controversial in clean-contaminated and complex cases. Oral antibiotic bowel preparation is an important adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. The use of topical antimicrobial and antiseptic agents such as antibacterial irrigations, local antimicrobial application, antimicrobial-coated sutures, antibacterial wound sealants, and antimicrobial impregnated dressings in the prevention of SSI is questionable.

Effect of Peritoneal Lavage with Clindamycin-Gentamicin Solution on Post-Operative Pain and Analytic Acute-Phase Reactants after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal lavage has been proposed to remove bacterial contamination and other materials promoting bacterial proliferation and pro-inflammatory cytokines that may enhance local inflammation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of peritoneal lavage with physiologic saline or an antibiotic solution (clindamycin-gentamicin) on post-operative pain and analytic acute-phase reactants and to determine the microbiologic impact of both irrigations on peritoneal contamination in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a bariatric procedure.

METHODS

The patients were randomized into two groups: Those undergoing an intra-abdominal lavage with physiologic saline (Group 1; n = 40) and those undergoing a similar lavage with a gentamicin-clindamycin solution (Group 2; n = 40). Peritoneal contamination, post-operative pain, and analytic acute-phase reactants 24 h after surgery were investigated.

RESULTS

The median pain score 24 h after surgery was 3.5 in Group 1 and 1.5 in Group 2 (p = 0.021). The glucose concentration (mean difference 33.1 mg/dL; p = 0.004), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) concentration (mean difference 41.8 U/L; p = 0.009), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) concentration (mean difference 34.2 U/L; p = 0.029), white blood cell count (mean difference 1930/mm(3); p = 0.029); C-reactive protein concentration (mean difference 27.3 mg/L; p = 0.036), and serum lactic acid concentration (mean difference 0.34 mg/L; p = 0.049) were significantly higher in Group 1. Peritoneal contamination also was significantly higher in Group 1 (17.5% vs 0; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-peritoneal irrigation with a gentamicin and clindamycin solution in patients undergoing LSG leads to a reduction in post-operative pain and peritoneal contamination, less alteration of acute-phase reactants, lower blood glucose concentration, a smaller increase in liver enzymes, and a shorter hospital stay.

Small-Incision Laparoscopy-Assisted Surgery Under Abdominal Cavity Irrigation in a Porcine Model

Background: Laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries are performed under carbon dioxide insufflation. Switching from gas to an isotonic irrigant introduces several benefits and avoids some adverse effects of gas insufflation. We developed an irrigating device and apparatus designed for single-incision laparoscopic surgery and tested its advantages and drawbacks during surgery in a porcine model.

Materials and Methods: Six pigs underwent surgical procedures under general anesthesia. A 30-cm extracorporeal cistern was placed over a 5–6-cm abdominal incision. The abdomen was irrigated with warm saline that was drained via a suction tube placed near the surgical field and continuously recirculated through a closed circuit equipped with a hemodialyzer as a filter. Irrigant samples from two pigs were cultured to check for bacterial and fungal contamination. Body weight was measured before and after surgery in four pigs that had not received treatments affecting hemodynamics or causing diuresis.

Results: One-way flow of irrigant ensured laparoscopic vision by rinsing blood from the surgical field. Through a retroperitoneal approach, cystoprostatectomy was successfully performed in three pigs, nephrectomy in two, renal excision in two, and partial nephrectomy in one, under simultaneous ultrasonographic monitoring. Through a transperitoneal approach, liver excision and hemostasis with a bipolar sealing device were performed in three pigs, and bladder pedicle excision was performed in one pig. Bacterial and fungal contamination of the irrigant was observed on the draining side of the circuit, but the filter captured the contaminants. Body weight increased by a median of 2.1% (range, 1.2–4.4%) of initial weight after 3–5 hours of irrigation.

Conclusions: Surgery under irrigation is feasible and practical when performed via a cistern through a small abdominal incision. This method is advantageous, especially in the enabling of continuous and free-angle ultrasound observation of parenchymal organs. Adverse effects of abdominal irrigation need further assessment before use in humans.

Effect of Peritoneal Lavage with Clindamycin-Gentamicin Solution during Elective Colorectal Cancer Surgery on the Oncologic Outcome

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics combined with lavage have demonstrated a reduction in the bacterial contamination and decreases surgical site infection (SSI) rate. SSI leads to an immunocompromised situation, as immunologic defense is focused on controlling the septic focus, leaving unattended the neoplasm. It has been described that SSI may result in a worse oncologic outcome. The aim of this study is to evaluate prospectively the effect of peritoneal lavage with clindamycin and gentamicin on the oncologic outcome of colorectal tumors.

METHODS

A randomized study of patients with diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms and undergoing elective surgery was performed at our institutions between January and September 2011. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Those undergoing an intra-abdominal lavage with normal saline (Group 1) and those undergoing an intra-abdominal lavage with a gentamicin-clindamycin solution (Group 2). Recurrence, global survival, and disease-free survival were investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred and four patients were analyzed, with 52 in each group. After a minimum follow-up of 42 mo, mean disease-free survival was 37.2 ± 14.2 mo in Group 1 and 25.8 ± 16.3 mo in Group 2 (mean difference 11.4; confidence interval (CI) 95% (2.2-25.1); p = 0.009). Mean global survival was 44.2 ± 11.9 mo in Group 1 and 34.1 ± 14.1 mo in Group 2 (mean difference 10.1; CI 95% (2.2-18);p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The intra-peritoneal lavage with gentamicin and clindamycin increases the disease-free and global survival colorectal tumors.

Impact of bacterial contamination of the abdominal cavity during pancreaticoduodenectomy on surgical-site infection

Background

Several risk factors for complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy have been reported. However, the impact of intraoperative bacterial contamination on surgical outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy has not been examined in depth.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and peritoneal lavage using 7000 ml saline between July 2012 and May 2014. The lavage fluid was subjected to bacterial culture examination. The influence of a positive bacterial culture on surgical-site infection (SSI) and postoperative course was evaluated. Risk factors for positive bacterial cultures were also evaluated.

Results

Forty-six (21·1 per cent) of 218 enrolled patients had a positive bacterial culture of the lavage fluid. Incisional SSI developed in 26 (57 per cent) of these 46 patients and in 13 (7·6 per cent) of 172 patients with a negative lavage culture (P &lt; 0·001). Organ/space SSI developed in 32 patients with a positive lavage culture (70 per cent) and in 43 of those with a negative culture (25·0 per cent) (P &lt; 0·001). Grade B/C pancreatic fistula was observed in 22 (48 per cent) and 48 (27·9 per cent) respectively of patients with positive and negative lavage cultures (P = 0·010). Postoperative hospital stay was longer in patients with a positive lavage culture (28 days versus 21 days in patients with a negative culture; P = 0·028). Multivariable analysis revealed that internal biliary drainage, combined colectomy and a longer duration of surgery were significant risk factors for positive bacterial culture of the lavage fluid.

Conclusion

Intraoperative bacterial contamination has an adverse impact on the development of SSI and grade B/C pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Assessment of postdischarge complications after bariatric surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is reported about postdischarge complications after bariatric surgery. We sought to identify the rates of postdischarge complications, associated risk factors, and their influence on early hospital readmission.

METHODS

Using the database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) (2005-2013), we identified patients ≥18 years of age who underwent a bariatric operation with a primary diagnosis of morbid/severe obesity and a body mass index ≥35. The incidence of postdischarge complication was the primary outcome, and hospital readmission was the secondary outcome. The association between postdischarge complications and various patient factors was explored by the use of multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 113,898 patients were identified with an overall postdischarge complication rate of 3.2% within 30 days of operation. The rates decreased from 2005 to 2006 (4.6%) to 2013 (3.0%) (P < .001). On average, postdischarge complications occurred 10 days postoperatively, with wound infection (49.4%), reoperation (30.7%), urinary tract infection (16.9%), shock/sepsis (12.4%), and organ space surgical-site infection (11.0%) being the most common. Patients undergoing open gastric bypass had the greatest postdischarge complication rate of 8.5%. Of those patients experiencing postdischarge complications, 51.6% were readmitted. The overall readmission rate was 4.9%. The factors associated most strongly with increased odds of postdischarge complications were body mass index ≥ 50, use of steroids, procedure type, predischarge complication, prolonged duration of stay, and prolonged operative time.

CONCLUSION

Postdischarge complications after bariatric surgery represent a substantial source of patient morbidity and hospital readmissions. The majority of postdischarge complications are infection-related, including surgical-site infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Adopting and implementing standardized pre- and postoperative strategies to decrease perioperative infection may help to decrease the rate of postdischarge complications and associated readmissions and enhance overall quality of care.

Total Occlusive Ionic Silver-Containing Dressing vs Mupirocin Ointment Application vs Conventional Dressing in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Effect on Incisional Surgical Site Infection

BACKGROUND

Several pre- and intraoperative factors have been associated with incisional surgical site infection (SSI), but little is known about the influence of postoperative wound care and especially, the use of different dressings on incisional SSI. The aim of this study was to compare 3 methods of wound dressings (conventional dressing, silver-containing dressing, and mupirocin ointment dressing) for their ability to prevent SSI, as measured by SSI rates, in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective open surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized study was performed. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms and plans to undergo elective surgery with curative aims. Patients were randomized using a 1:1:1 allocation into 3 groups: patients receiving an ionic silver-containing dressing (ISD) (group 1), a mupirocin ointment application (MOA) (group 2), and a conventional dressing (group 3 or standard dressing). The primary outcomes variable was occurrence of incisional SSI. Follow-up was 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients were included, 49 in each group. Incisional SSI occurred in 9 patients (18.4%) in the ISD group, 2 (4.1%) in the MOA group, and 10 (20.4%) in the standard dressing group (p = 0.028). Adjusting for multiple comparisons, there were no significant differences between ISD and standard dressing groups; a significant difference was observed between ISD and MOA (relative risk [RR] 4.5; 95% CI (1.1 to 19.8); p = 0.046) and between the standard group and the MOA group (RR 5; 95% CI (1.2 to 21.7); p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of mupirocin ointment achieves better results for the prevention of SSI than ionic silver-containing dressing or standard dressing in patients undergoing elective open colorectal surgery.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Research shows that administration of prophylactic antibiotics before colorectal surgery prevents postoperative surgical wound infection. The best antibiotic choice, timing of administration and route of administration remain undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Specifically to determine:1. whether antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical wound infection;2. the target spectrum of bacteria (aerobic or anaerobic bacteria, or both);3. the best timing and duration of antibiotic administration;4. the most effective route of antibiotic administration (intravenous, oral or both);5. whether any antibiotic is clearly more effective than the currently recommended gold standard specified in published guidelines;6. whether antibiotics should be given before or after surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review published in 2009 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid). For the update of this review we rewrote the search strategies and extended the search to cover from 1954 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE up to 7 January 2013. We searched CENTRAL on the same date (Issue 12, 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of prophylactic antibiotic use in elective and emergency colorectal surgery, with surgical wound infection as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted and reviewed by one review author and checked by another only for the single, dichotomous outcome of surgical wound infection. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 260 trials and 68 different antibiotics, including 24 cephalosporins and 43,451 participants. Many studies had multiple variables that separated the two study groups; these could not be compared to other studies that tested one antibiotic and had a single variable separating the two groups. We did not consider the risk of bias arising from attrition and lack of blinding of outcome assessors to affect the results for surgical wound infection.Meta-analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference in postoperative surgical wound infection when prophylactic antibiotics were compared to placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.41, high quality evidence). This translates to a reduction in risk from 39% to 13% with prophylactic antibiotics. The slightly higher risk of wound infection with short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotic did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). Similarly risk of would infection was slightly higher with single-dose antibiotics when compared with multiple dose antibiotics, but the results are compatible with benefit and harm (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.10). Additional aerobic coverage and additional anaerobic coverage both showed statistically significant improvements in surgical wound infection rates (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68 and RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71, respectively), as did combined oral and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis when compared to intravenous alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.74), or oral alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76). Comparison of an antibiotic with anaerobic specificity to one with aerobic specificity showed no significant advantage for either one (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36). Two small studies compared giving antibiotics before or after surgery and no significant difference in this timing was found (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.15). Established gold-standard regimens recommended in major guidelines were no less effective than any other antibiotic choice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found high quality evidence that antibiotics covering aerobic and anaerobic bacteria delivered orally or intravenously (or both) prior to elective colorectal surgery reduce the risk of surgical wound infection. Our review shows that antibiotics delivered within this framework can reduce the risk of postoperative surgical wound infection by as much as 75%. It is not known whether oral antibiotics would still have these effects when the colon is not empty. This aspect of antibiotic dosing has not been tested. Further research is required to establish the optimal timing and duration of dosing, and the frequency of longer-term adverse effects such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis.

Irrigation of abdomen with imipenem solution decreases surgical site infections in patients with perforated appendicitis: a randomized clinical trial

Background:

Perforated appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen requiring emergent surgery for immediate appendectomy and peritoneal cavity irrigation; however, the efficacy of irrigation with antibiotic solutions is controversial.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of imipenem solution irrigation on post-operative surgical site infections (SSIs), hospital length of stay, and hospital costs. We hypothesized that there would be lower rate of SSIs, a shorter hospital stay, and lower hospital cost in patients with perforated appendicitis who received peritoneal cavity irrigation with imipenem solution in comparison to their counterparts who received irrigation with normal saline.

Patients and Methods:

In this randomized single-blind parallel-group clinical trial, we enrolled 90 patients with perforated appendicitis with 12-50 years of age and randomly allocated them into experimental group (n = 45) and control group (n = 45). The control group received peritoneal irrigation with normal saline (0.9%) and experimental group underwent peritoneal irrigation with imipenem solution (1 mg/mL). All surgical procedures were performed in Imam Reza Hospital of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. The study primary outcome was surgical site infections (including wound infection and abdominal abscess) and the secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and hospital cost. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to analyze the study data.

Results:

Imipenem solution irrigation was associated with significant clinical improvement at one-month follow-up. The experimental group presented with significantly lower rate of SSIs and shorter length of hospital stay. The experimental group had lower rate of SSIs compared to the control group (4.4% vs. 22.2%, respectively) (p= 0.013). The duration of hospital stay was nearly one day longer in control group (5.84 ± 2.58 days) vs. experimental group (4.91 ± 1.29 days) (P = 0.034), and hospital costs were $50 lower in experimental group ($500 ± $292) vs. control group ($450 ± $170) (P = 0.281).

Conclusions:

The study findings revealed that peritoneal lavage with imipenem solution (1 mg/mL) decreases the rate of post-operative SSIs in patients with perforated appendicitis in comparison to patients irrigated with normal saline alone. These patients also had shorter hospital stay, and lower hospital costs.

[Prevention of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery. A critical review of the evidence]

Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased morbidity, mortality and sanitary costs, and reduced patients quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted guidelines of scientifically-validated processes for prevention of surgical site and central-line catheter infections and sepsis. Most of these guidelines have resulted in an improvement in postoperative results. A review of the best available evidence on these measures in abdominal surgery is presented. The best measures are: avoidance of hair removal from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcoholic antiseptic, correct use of antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60 min before incision, use of 1(st) or 2(nd) generation cephalosporins, single preoperative dosis, dosage adjustments based on body weight and renal function, intraoperative re-dosing if the duration of the procedure exceeds 2 half-lives of the drug or there is excessive blood loss), prevention of hypothermia, control of perioperative glucose levels, avoid blood transfusion and restrict intraoperative liquid infusion.

Update on new medicinal applications of gentamicin: evidence-based review

Gentamicin (GM) was discovered in 1963 and was introduced into parenteral usage in 1971. Since then, GM has been widely used in medicinal applications. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States approved the routine prescription of GM to treat the following infectious disorders: infection due to Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Citrobacter spp., Enterobacteriaceae spp., Pseudomonas spp.; Staphylococcus infectious disease; bacterial meningitis; bacterial sepsis of newborns; bacterial septicemia; infection of the eye, bone, skin and/or subcutaneous tissue; infective endocarditis; peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis due to Pseudomonas and other gram-negative organisms; peritonitis due to gastrointestinal tract infections; respiratory tract infections; and urinary tract infectious disease. GM is an old antibiotic and is used widely beyond its FDA-labeled indications as follows: actinomycotic infection; Staphylococcus saprophyticus bacteremia with pyelonephritis; appendicitis; cystic fibrosis; diverticulitis; adjunct regimen for febrile neutropenia; female genital infection; uterine infection; postnatal infection; necrotizing enterocolitis in fetus or newborn; osteomyelitis; pelvic inflammatory disease; plague; gonorrhea; tularemia; prophylaxis of post-cholecystectomy infection, transrectal prostate biopsy, and post-tympanostomy-related infection; malignant otitis externa; and intratympanically or transtympanically for Ménière's disease. GM is also used in combination regimens, such as with beta-lactam antibiotics to treat mixed infection and with bacteriophage to treat Staphylococcus aureus infections. It is also added to medical materials, such as GM-loaded cement spacers for osteomyelitis and prosthetic joint-associated infections. Overall, there are many medicinal applications for GM. To reduce the development of GM-resistant bacteria and to maintain its effectiveness, GM should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected as being caused by susceptible bacteria. In the future, we believe that GM will be used more widely in combination therapy and applied to medical materials for clinical applications. A definitive, appropriately powered study of this antibiotic and its clinical applications is now required, especially in terms of its effectiveness, safety, and cost.

Povidone-iodine combined with antibiotic topical irrigation to reduce capsular contracture in cosmetic breast augmentation: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Antibacterial lavage with topical antibiotics may reduce the occurrence of capsular contracture (CC) in breast augmentation.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigate the efficacy of povidone-iodine combined with antibiotic irrigation in reducing the CC rate.

METHODS

The charts of 330 consecutive women who underwent cosmetic breast augmentation during 2 different periods (group A: 2004-2009, n = 165; group B: 2009-2010, n = 165) were retrospectively reviewed. All patients in the series underwent augmentation with the same surgeon (A.S.) via the inframammary approach and dual-plane pocket. In group A, patients received a single perioperative dose of 1.5 g of intravenous cephalothin and 750 mg of oral cephalexin twice a day for 7 days after discharge. In group B, patients perioperatively received 750 mg of intravenous cefuroxime, and each implant and pocket were irrigated with 25 mL of a 10% povidone-iodine solution mixed with 750 mg of cefuroxime and 80 mg of gentamicin diluted in 15 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution. After discharge, patients received 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once a day for 5 days. Postoperative complications included occurrence of infection, hematoma, seroma, and CC.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) postoperative follow-up in groups A and B was 24 (+/- 13) months and 22 (+/- 3) months, respectively. The postoperative superficial wound infection rate was 1.8% and 1.2%, the seroma rate was 1.8% and 1.2%, and the hematoma rate was 0.6% and 1.2% in groups A and B, respectively. Ten CC cases (Baker grade 3 or 4) in group A and 1 in group B were reported (6% vs 0.6%; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine and antibiotic irrigation in cosmetic breast augmentation yielded a lower CC rate than standard perioperative antibiotics in this series of patients.

Effect of gentamicin lavage of the axillary surgical bed after lymph node dissection on drainage discharge volume

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of axillary lavage with a gentamicin solution before wound closure on drainage volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized study was performed. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of breast neoplasms and plans to undergo an elective axillary lymph node dissection due to axillary metastasis. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: patients undergoing 2 lavages with 500 ml normal saline (Group 1) and patients first undergoing lavage with 500 ml normal saline followed by a second lavage with a 500 ml of a gentamicin (240 mg) solution (Group 2). Microbiological samples were obtained before any lavage, after each lavage and at the time of drain removal.

RESULTS

40 patients were included. Mean number of days maintaining the drain in place was 7.7 ± 3.2 days in Group 1 and 4.3 ± 1.4 days in Group 2 (p = 0.001). Total drainage volume before removal was 465 ± 250.9 ml in Group 1 and 169 ± 102.2 ml in Group 2 (p = 0.003). After a second lavage with normal saline in Group 1 and after a lavage with gentamicin solution in Group 2, microbiological culture was positive in 10 patients (50%) in Group 1 and 1 case (5%) in Group 2 (p = 0.016). Positive cultures were associated with higher drainage volumes.

CONCLUSION

The postoperative drainage volume of the axillary drain is significantly lower in the patients undergoing a lavage of the surgical bed with a gentamicin solution than in the control group undergoing a lavage with normal saline. A significant reduction in the contamination is only obtained after a lavage with gentamicin solution.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01700504.

New developments in colorectal surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of colorectal surgery continues to move forward as technical innovations emerge and as surgeons ask critical questions. The results of subsequent investigations often lead to changes in practice. This review examines recent publications that describe these practice changes.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and reviewed recent publications in the areas of rectal cancer controversies, genetic risk profiling, practice improvements, diverticulitis, enhanced recovery protocols, fecal incontinence, and single incision laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY

New technologies and practice innovations will continue to enhance patient outcomes. Multiinstitutional studies, randomized when able, are necessary to further define the safety and efficacy of new surgical techniques and to further define best practices in colorectal surgery.