Infection control practices and infectious complications in dermatological surgery

Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Reconstruction of Nasal Mohs Defects

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on outcomes and complications following surgical reconstructions of nasal Mohs defects in the outpatient setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single tertiary care center, July 2021 to June 2023.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent reconstruction of nasal Mohs defects in an outpatient office setting were examined. Patient demographics, surgical details, prophylactic postprocedural antibiotic use, and postprocedural complications (infection, flap or graft necrosis, wound dehiscence) were collected. Outcomes and complications were compared between patients who received and did not receive prophylactic antibiotics using χ2, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients met inclusion criteria. A majority of reconstructions utilized a local flap (70%), followed by a skin or composite graft (22%), then an interpolated flap (8%). Over half of patients (55%) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics. Postprocedural complications were documented in 16 patients (7.6%), including infection (3.3%) and flap or graft loss or necrosis (1.4%). The rate of complications did not differ based on receipt of antibiotics. The only factors independently associated with the development of complications were history of chemoradiation and reconstruction with skin or composite grafts.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antibiotics after nasal Mohs reconstructions performed in the office setting were not associated with any differences in the rate of postprocedural complications, including surgical site infections.

Review of infection and bleeding complications in excisional skin surgery

Skin excision is the primary treatment for skin cancer. Complication rates from skin cancer excision are generally low but rates of complications may vary according to procedural complexity, site and patient factors. It is important that patients are fully informed through the consent process considering individual circumstances, the Montgomery ruling and material risks. The clinician must use an evidence-based approach to the consent process and assessment of risk. We have searched the literature and reviewed the current evidence regarding complications, and their incidence where data were available, following excisional skin surgery. This article aims to enable clinicians to better inform patients during the consent process about associated bleeding and infection risk.

Sterile versus non-sterile gloves during cystoscopy: A randomized prospective single-blind study

Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the need for sterile gloves during cystoscopy by comparing the incidence of UTI symptoms between patients in whom the procedure is performed with non-sterile gloves with those performed with non-sterile gloves.

Patients and Methods

This study had a randomized, prospective, single-blind design and included patients aged >20 years who underwent cystoscopy in either of two outpatient clinics between September 2015 and November 2021. The patients were allocated to a sterile group or a non-sterile group. Only the urologists were aware of whether or not the gloves were sterile. The patients were instructed to report any symptoms suggestive of UTI after cystoscopy.

Results

A total of 1258 patients were enrolled in the sterile group and 1376 in the non-sterile group. Symptoms of UTI were reported by six patients (0.48%) in the sterile group and six (0.44%) in the non-sterile group. The between-group difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.88).

Conclusion

It is not necessary to use sterile gloves during routine cystoscopy.

Risk of wound infection with use of sterile versus clean gloves in wound repair at the Emergency Department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Sterile gloves are widely used during wound repair procedures in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. It is unclear whether sterile gloves protect against postoperative wound infections. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if sterile gloves offer significant protection against wound infections compared to clean gloves for wound repair in the ED.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library and Web Of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) from their dates of inception to January 2023. RCTs or NRSIs comparing sterile (control) vs. clean/no (intervention) glove use for wound repair procedures in the ED and reporting postoperative wound infections were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk-of-bias of each report on a standardised form. Wound infection incidence was pooled using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

7 studies were included in the review, with 6 included in the meta-analysis. Of 3227 patients, 115/1608 (7.2%) patients in the intervention group and 135/1619 (8.3%) patients in the control group had postoperative wound infections. Overall RR was 0.86 (95% CI,0.67-1.10, I2=3.6%), and of high evidence certainty (GRADE). Absence of a protective effect was invariant in sensitivity analyses, leave-one-out analysis and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of additional protection against wound infections with the use of sterile gloves for wound repair in the ED compared to clean gloves was found. However, the review was limited by nonreporting of antibiotic history and time between wound repair and follow-up amongst included studies. Considering the ergonomics, potential cost-savings and environmental impact, clean gloves are a viable alternative to sterile gloves, without compromising wound infection risk in this setting.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in skin surgery - Position paper of the Antibiotic Stewardship working group of the German Society for Dermatologic Surgery (DGDC), Part 1: Procedure- and patient-related risk factors

The aim of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is to prevent the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) or other infectious complications (especially bacterial endocarditis or septic arthritis). PAP is effective in surgeries where overall infection rates are high even without considering patient-related risk factors (such as orthopedic surgery or fracture repair). Surgery on airways, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary tract is also considered to be associated with a risk of infection and may require PAP. Overall, SSIs in skin surgery are relatively rare and vary between 1% and 11% depending on the localization, complexity of the wound closure and patient cohort. Therefore, the general surgical recommendations regarding PAP only partially reflect the needs of dermatologic surgery. In contrast to the USA, where recommendations on the use of PAP in skin surgery already exist, there are currently no guidelines for the use of PAP specifically designed for dermatologic surgery in Germany. In the absence of an evidence-based recommendation, the use of PAP is guided by the experience of the surgeons and leads to a heterogeneous use of antimicrobial substances. In this work, we summarize the current scientific literature on the use of PAP and make a recommendation depending on procedure- and patient-related risk factors.

Perioperative Antibiotikaprophylaxe in der Dermatochirurgie - Positionspapier der Arbeitsgruppe Antibiotic Stewardship der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dermatochirurgie (DGDC), Teil 1: Eingriffs- und patientenbezogene Risikofaktoren

Die perioperative Antibiotikaprophylaxe (PAP) hat das Ziel, postoperative Wundinfektionen und Infektionskomplikationen (insbesondere bakterielle Endokarditis oder septische Arthritis) bei chirurgischen Eingriffen zu vermeiden. Die PAP hat sich besonders bei Eingriffen bewährt, bei denen die Infektionsraten auch ohne Berücksichtigung der patientenbezogenen Risikofaktoren insgesamt hoch sind (wie für orthopädische Eingriffe oder die Versorgung von Frakturen). Auch Operationen mit Eröffnung der Atemwege, des Verdauungs‐, Genital‐ oder Harntrakts gelten als mit Infektionsrisiko behaftet und können eine PAP erfordern. In der Dermatochirurgie sind Infektionskomplikationen insgesamt verhältnismäßig selten und variieren in Abhängigkeit von der Lokalisation, Komplexität des Eingriffes und der Patientenkohorte zwischen 1% und 11%. Daher spiegeln die allgemeinchirurgischen Empfehlungen bezüglich der PAP die Bedürfnisse der Dermatochirurgie nur begrenzt wider. Im Gegensatz zu den USA, wo eine entsprechende Empfehlung vorliegt, existiert in Deutschland zurzeit keine speziell für dermatochirurgische Eingriffe konzipierte Leitlinie zur Anwendung von PAP. In Abwesenheit evidenzbasierter Empfehlungen wird die PAP durch die Erfahrung der einzelnen Operateure geprägt, was zu einer heterogenen Anwendung antimikrobieller Substanzen führt. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird die aktuelle wissenschaftliche Literatur zu dem Thema zusammengefasst und die daraus resultierende Empfehlung zur Anwendung der PAP in Abhängigkeit von eingriffs‐ und patientenbezogenen Risikofaktoren formuliert.

Comparison of Postoperative Infection Rates After Office-based Oculoplastic Procedures Using Sterile and Clean Gloves

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative infection (PI) rates using sterile and clean-boxed gloves in office-based oculoplastic procedures.

METHODS

Prospective, comparative study of patients undergoing oculoplastic procedures by a single surgeon (RS) in an office-based procedure room between October 2018 and September 2020. Participants included were 18 years or older. Excluded were patients on oral antibiotics within 2 weeks before the procedure, had a follow-up period of less than 1 week, had a contaminated wound, had complex reconstructions, or had multiple simultaneous procedures performed. Oculoplastic procedures were performed using either sterile or clean-boxed gloves. The main outcome measure was the frequency of postoperative infection.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred twenty-nine patients, 1,815 (58%) of whom were women, with a mean age of 60 (18-102) years were included. One thousand five hundred seventy procedures were performed with sterile gloves, while 1,559 were performed with clean-boxed gloves. The patients in the 2 groups were similar in age, gender, and number of high-risk individuals. One patient in the sterile glove group who underwent upper blepharoplasty (0.064%) and one patient (0.064%) in the clean-boxed glove group who had an external levator advancement blepharoptosis repair developed PI. Neither patient had risk factors for infection, and both infections resolved after 1 week of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

In minimally complex in-office oculoplastic procedures, using sterile versus clean-boxed gloves resulted in similar low infection rates in this large cohort. The healthcare benefits may not outweigh the costs of using sterile gloves universally for office-based oculoplastic procedures.

Thinking Outside the Operating Room: Guidance on Designing a Safe and Effective Minor Procedure Room

The minor procedure room (MPR) offers numerous advantages over the traditional operating room for performing many common hand surgeries. MPRs require less space, are subject to more practical architectural design standards, and facilitate more judicious use of disposable materials and unnecessary instruments than common hand surgeries. MPRs reduce costs to the system and patient at every step of the surgical workflow and improve efficiency by removing preoperative and postoperative monitoring requirements. Hand surgeons sometimes face resistance when attempting surgery in MPRs, often because of confusion about their design characteristics and capabilities. This article aims to clarify many of the major requirements for establishing an MPR and provide a guide to hand surgeons for performing safe, efficient surgery outside the operating room.

Patient-dependent risk factors for wound infection after skin surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative wound infection in dermatologic surgery causes impaired wound healing, poor cosmetic outcome and increased morbidity. Patients with a high-risk profile may benefit from perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The objective of this systematic review was to identify risk factors for surgical site infection after dermatologic surgery. In this article, we report findings on patient-dependent risk factors. The literature search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and trial registers. We performed meta-analysis, if studies reported sufficient data to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Study quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Seventeen observational studies that analysed 31213 surgical wounds were eligible for inclusion. Fourteen studies qualified for meta-analysis. Nine studies showed good, three fair and five poor methodological quality. The reported incidence of surgical site infection ranged from 0.96% to 8.70%. Meta-analysis yielded that male gender and immunosuppression were significantly associated with higher infection rates. There was a tendency towards a higher infection risk for patients with diabetes, without statistical significance. Meta-analysis did not show different infection rates after excision of squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma, but studies were substantially heterogenous. There was no significant association between risk for wound infection and smoking, age over 60 years, oral anti-aggregation or anti-coagulation or excision of malignant melanoma. In conclusion, the risk for surgical site infection in dermatologic surgery is low. Infection rates were increased significantly in male as well as immunosuppressed patients and non-significantly in diabetics.

Comparative Incidence of Periocular Surgical Site Infections with Increased Surgical Mask Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of surgical mask use on infection rates for office-based periocular surgeries during the pandemic.

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review of medical records identified patients who had an office-based oculofacial plastic surgery procedure during the pandemic between March and December 2020. Statistical analysis was used to compare this group to patients that underwent procedures between March and December 2019, prior to the pandemic when neither surgeon nor patient wore a surgical mask.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 680 patients. Thirty-one different types of procedures were encountered. The incidence of infections in 2020 compared to 2019 was not statistically significant (1.12% (n = 3) versus 1.21% (n = 5), p = 1). All patients with infections were treated with oral antibiotics and improved without long-term complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Periocular surgical site infections are uncommon, and the wearing of surgical masks by patient and surgeon during our office-based oculofacial procedures did not change the incidence of SSIs.

Non-sterile gloves and dressing versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the emergency department: a non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with traumatic wounds frequently present to the ED. Literature on whether to treat these wounds sterile or non-sterile is sparse. Non-sterile treatment has the advantage of saving resources and costs, and could be of value in health settings where sterile materials are not readily available. Our objective was to compare the rate of wound infection after suturing traumatic lacerations with non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes in the ED. We hypothesised that non-sterile gloves and dressings would be non-inferior to sterile gloves, dressings and drapes. The non-inferiority margin was set at 2%.

METHODS

A multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial testing for non-inferiority of non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds was performed in 3 EDs in The Netherlands. Adults with uncomplicated wounds were included from July 2012 to December 2016. At the time of treatment, patient and wound characteristics and management were documented. The outcome was wound infection, which was identified during follow-up in the treating ED at 5-14 days postprocedure.

RESULTS

From 2468 eligible patients, 1480 were randomised in a sterile (n=747) or non-sterile (n=733) protocol. Baseline characteristics were similar in both study arms. The observed wound infection rate in the non-sterile group was 5.7% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.5%) vs 6.8% (95% CI 5.1% to 8.8%) in the sterile group. The mean difference of the wound infection rate of the two groups was -1.1% (95% CI -3.7% to 1.5%).

CONCLUSION

Although recruitment ceased prior to reaching our planned sample size, the findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a large difference between the non-sterile gloves, dressings and sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the ED.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL 34798.078.11, NTR3541.

Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Plastic Surgery: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Consensus Study

For many years, it was clearly shown that surgical procedures might be associated with surgical site infection (SSI). Many scientific institutions prepared guidelines to use in surgery to reduce abuse and misuse of antibiotics. However, in the general guidelines for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, plastic surgical procedures are not addressed or are only marginally discussed, and children were almost systematically excluded. The main aim of this Consensus document is to provide clinicians with recommendations on antimicrobial prophylaxis for pediatric patients undergoing plastic surgery. The following scenarios were considered: clean plastic surgery in elective procedures with an exclusive skin and subcutis involvement; clean-contaminated/contaminated plastic surgery in elective procedures with an exclusive skin and subcutis involvement; elective plastic surgery with use of local flaps; elective plastic surgery with the use of grafts; prolonged elective plastic surgery; acute burns; clean contused lacerated wounds without bone exposure; high-risk contused lacerated wounds or with bone exposure; contused lacerated wound involving the oral mucosa; plastic surgery following human bite; plastic surgery following animal bite; plastic surgery with tissue expander insertion. Our Consensus document shows that antimicrobial perioperative prophylaxis in pediatric patients undergoing plastic surgery is recommended in selected cases. While waiting the results of further pediatric studies, the application of uniform and shared protocols in these procedures will improve surgical practice, with a reduction in SSIs and consequent rationalization of resources and costs, as well as limiting the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance.

Are Specific Body Sites Prone for Wound Infection After Skin Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Identifying risk factors for wound infection may guide clinical practice for optimal use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current evidence whether specific body sites have higher risks for surgical site infections (SSI).

METHODS

The systematic literature search included MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registers. Only observational studies qualified for inclusion and meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 33,086 surgical wounds were eligible. Eight studies were of good, 4 of fair, and 6 of poor quality. The mean infection rate was 4.08%. Meta-analysis showed that the lips had significantly higher infection rates. The lower extremity and ears had or tended toward a higher risk for infection, but studies were clinically heterogeneous. A large prospective trial found that surgical wounds on the hands were at higher risk for infection. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate. The risk for SSI in other body locations was not different or remained uncertain because of substantial heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSION

Lips, lower extremities, and probably ears and hands may have a higher risk for wound infection after skin surgery. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate.

Surgical Site Infection After Dermatologic Procedures: Critical Reassessment of Risk Factors and Reappraisal of Rates and Causes

While rates are low, surgical site infections are the most common complication of dermatologic surgery. Surgical site infections have important consequences including impairment of wound healing, suboptimal cosmetic outcome, hospitalization, increased healthcare costs, and rarely, systemic infection. It is imperative to understand the risk factors and existing preventative measures to minimize the development of infection. This article reviews the available literature regarding surgical site infections following dermatologic procedures, to evaluate the standard of diagnosis and role of wound culture, risk factors, mimicking conditions, and significance of antibiotic prophylaxis. We offer a critical reassessment of the current literature on risk factors and reappraisal of infection rates to promote evidence-based patient care. We conclude that the strongest evidence suggests that diabetes mellitus is likely associated with increased surgical site infections. Immunosuppression is often clinically considered a risk factor; however, the evidence is mixed. In general the addition of antibiotics does not confer benefit except in high-risk sites. Conclusively, Mohs micrographic surgery has been proven safe in office and inpatient settings. We agree that sterile glove use for simple procedures is likely not a significant factor in the development of surgical site infections; however, we hypothesize that the overall sterile technique and setting may play a role in longer and/or more complex procedures.

Reappraising Elements of the Aseptic Technique in Dermatology: A Review

Dermatologic procedures are performed under varying degrees of antisepsis, and no clear guidelines exist regarding the role of the aseptic technique in dermatology. This review aims to clarify the terminology surrounding surgical asepsis and examines the importance of various components of the aseptic technique in cutaneous surgery. Included are studies examining optimal glove type, surgical instruments, skin antisepsis, and cost-reducing protocols. Our review highlights that most dermatology procedures are not performed under completely sterile conditions due to the lack of environmental and foot traffic controls in dermatology offices. In addition, for some outpatient procedures, such as for minor excisions and Mohs surgery before reconstruction, elements of the clean technique can be used without increasing infection rates. However, data on the feasibility of a clean protocol for Mohs reconstruction is conflicting. Future prospective, randomized trials analyzing various components of the aseptic technique in dermatology are greatly needed so that guidelines can be established for practicing dermatologists.

Preventing and managing complications in dermatologic surgery: Procedural and postsurgical concerns

The second article in this continuing medical education series reviews the evidence regarding the intraoperative and postoperative risks for patients and health care workers. We share the most up-to-date recommendations for risk management and postoperative complication management to ensure optimal surgical efficacy and patient safety.

Postoperative complications in dermatological patients undergoing microscopically controlled surgery in inpatient setting (next-day surgery): A single-center epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI), bleeding, and necrosis are possible complications of dermatological surgery, and their rates are well described for Mohs surgery (same-day surgery). However, there are only limited data on their occurrence in microscopically controlled surgery of the form in which it is practiced in German hospitals (next-day surgery).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patient records of patients hospitalized for microscopically controlled surgery during the year 2017 (12 months) in the Department of Dermatology and Allergology at the University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen (Aachen, Germany). The investigation addressed postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

319 patients underwent 528 dermatosurgical procedures in the defined period. Bleeding and necrosis occurred in 3.8 % (20/528) and 1.7 % (9/528) of the procedures, respectively. SSI occurred in 5.1 % (27/528) of the cases. The occurrence of bleeding was a statistically significant risk factor for SSI (p  =  0.01). Furthermore, bleeding, SSI, and wound closure with a full-thickness graft were statistically significant risk factors for the development of necrosis (p < 0.05). Diabetes or immunosuppression were not found to be statistically significant risk factors for the development of SSI or necrosis after dermatologic surgery (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates in microscopically controlled surgery (next-day surgery) are generally low and similar to those reported for Mohs surgery (same-day surgery). Therefore, it appears that some evidence-based perioperative recommendations that have been developed for Mohs surgery could be applied to German inpatient dermatosurgery. However, prospective studies with larger patient numbers are required to offer concrete recommendations specifically for microscopically controlled surgery (next-day surgery).

[Rieger-Marchac flaps: Complications and patient satisfaction]

PURPOSE

Like all surgical procedures, dorsal nasal flaps may be followed by both early and late complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical complications and cosmetic outcome of dorsal nasal flaps over a 7-year period in an academic dermatologic surgery unit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for all patients undergoing dorsal nasal flap between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. Early and late complications were recorded. Patients were contacted by phone to assess long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients were included. Early complications included bleeding (n=2), local infection (n=2) and focal flap necrosis (n=1). Late complications comprised flap thickening (n=7), restriction of the medial canthus (n=2), opening of the labionasal angle (n=1), stitch granuloma (n=1) and telangiectasia on the flap (n=1). Regarding the aesthetic result, seven patients were very satisfied with the flap. Four patients underwent corrective surgery and one patient had laser treatment for telangiectasia on the flap.

CONCLUSION

Two thirds of patients were satisfied with the aesthetic results and one third had late complications of the flap. Consequently, patients undergoing Rieger-Marchac procedures must be informed of the potential need for further corrective measures following nasal dorsal flap repair.

Surgical site infections after microscopically controlled skin surgery in immunocompromised patients: a retrospective two-center cohort study

The data on the risk of surgical site infections (SSI) after skin surgery in patients undergoing immunosuppressive treatment are limited and the results of the existing single-center studies are controversial. At the same time, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) for immunocompromised patients seems to be overused. We performed a retrospective analysis of the SSI rates after extensive dermatosurgical procedures performed from January 2017 to December 2017 in patients with impaired immune status due to a hematological disorder or immunosuppressive treatment at two German dermatosurgical centers. The SSI rate in immunocompromised patients was 6.7%. The independent risk factors for SSI found in the studied population were the occurrence of bleeding after one of the surgical stages and the use of oral anticoagulation with two different agents (the combination of acetylsalicylic acid and a direct oral anticoagulant). 44.4% (4/9) of the procedures complicated with an SSI involved wound closure with a skin flap, which was statistically significant (p = 0.041). Other risk factors identified were older age of the patients and increased duration of hospitalization (p < 0.05). Localization of the surgical site, number of surgical stages required for tumor clearance, and diabetes mellitus were not found to be statistically significant risk factors for occurrence of SSI in the studied population. SSI rates in immunocompromised patients undergoing skin surgery are low; therefore, we recommend against routine use of PAP for this cohort.

Evidence-based Sterility: The Evolving Role of Field Sterility in Skin and Minor Hand Surgery

Field sterility is commonly used for skin and minor hand surgery performed in the ambulatory setting. Surgical site infection (SSI) rates are similar for these same procedures when performed in the main operating room (OR). In this paper, we aim to look at both current evidence and common sense logic supporting the use of some of the techniques and apparel designed to prevent SSI. This is a literature review of the evidence behind the ability of gloves, masks, gowns, drapes, head covers, footwear, and ventilation systems to prevent SSIs. We used MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed and included literature from the inception of each database up to March 2019. We could not find substantial evidence to support the use of main OR sterility practices such as head covers, gowns, full patient draping, laminar airflow, and footwear to reduce SSIs in skin and minor hand surgery. Field sterility in ambulatory minor procedure rooms outside the main OR is appropriate for most skin and minor hand surgery procedures. SSIs in these procedures are easily treatable with minimal patient morbidity and do not justify the cost and waste associated with the use of main OR sterility.

[Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatosurgery-2019 status quo]

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is determined as a short-term, in general single-shot administration of an antibiotic prior to a surgical intervention. The main goal of PAP is to reduce postoperative surgical site infections. In addition, PAP is administered to avoid development of bacterial endocarditis in patients who are at high risk. Regarding the increasing prescription of antibiotics by dermatologists and the rising emergence of resistant bacterial strains, a rational use of PAP in dermatosurgery has to be demanded. Thus, identification of risk factors being determined either by the patient, the type of surgery or the location will help to identify those patients requiring PAP. Moreover, utilizing established criteria will avoid the unnecessary administration of PAP-which only creates a false sense of safety.

Surgical Site Infections After Dermatologic Surgery in Immunocompromised Patients: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression is often considered as an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infections (SSI) while performing skin surgery. However, the data on the risk of developing SSI after dermatologic surgery in immunosuppressed patients are limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients of the Department of Dermatology and Allergology at the University Hospital of RWTH Aachen in Aachen, Germany, who underwent hospitalization for a dermatologic surgery between June 2016 and January 2017 (6 months), were followed up after surgery until completion of the wound healing process. The follow-up addressed the occurrence of SSI and the need for systemic antibiotics after the operative procedure. Immunocompromised patients were compared with immunocompetent patients. The investigation was conducted as a retrospective analysis of patient records.

RESULTS

The authors performed 284 dermatologic surgeries in 177 patients. Nineteen percent (54/284) of the skin surgery was performed on immunocompromised patients. The most common indications for surgical treatment were nonmelanoma skin cancer and malignant melanomas. Surgical site infections occurred in 6.7% (19/284) of the cases. In 95% (18/19), systemic antibiotic treatment was needed. Twenty-one percent of all SSI (4/19) were seen in immunosuppressed patients.

CONCLUSION

According to the authors' data, immunosuppression does not represent a significant risk factor for SSI after dermatologic surgery. However, larger prospective studies are needed to make specific recommendations on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis while performing skin surgery in these patients.

Effect of a single prophylactic preoperative oral antibiotic dose on surgical site infection following complex dermatological procedures on the nose and ear: a prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded trial

OBJECTIVES

There is limited published research studying the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection (SSI) in dermatological surgery, and there is no consensus for its use in higher-risk cases. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a single oral preoperative 2 g dose of cephalexin in preventing SSI following flap and graft dermatological closures on the nose and ear.

DESIGN

Prospective double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial testing for difference in infection rates.

SETTING

Primary care skin cancer clinics in North Queensland, Australia, were randomised to 2 g oral cephalexin or placebo 40-60 min prior to skin incision.

PARTICIPANTS

154 consecutive eligible patients booked for flap or graft closure following skin cancer excision on the ear and nose.

INTERVENTION

2 g dose of cephalexin administered 40-60 min prior to surgery.

RESULTS

Overall 8/69 (11.6%) controls and 1/73 (1.4%) in the intervention group developed SSI (p=0.015; absolute SSI reduction 10.2%; number needed to treat (NNT) for benefit 9.8, 95% CI 5.5 to 45.5). In males, 7/44 controls and 0/33 in the intervention group developed SSI (p=0.018; absolute SSI reduction 15.9%; NNT for benefit 6.3, 95% CI 3.8 to 19.2). SSI was much lower in female controls (1/25) and antibiotic prophylaxis did not further reduce this (p=1.0). There was no difference between the study groups in adverse symptoms attributable to high-dose antibiotic administration (p=0.871).

CONCLUSION

A single oral 2 g dose of cephalexin given before complex skin closure on the nose and ear reduced SSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR 365115; Post-results.

Efficacy and adverse effects of topical chloramphenicol ointment use for surgical wounds: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chloramphenicol ointment is often used in plastic and dermatologic surgery as a topical antibiotic for surgical wounds, but evidence regarding its efficacy and side effects is lacking. In addition, anecdotal fear of aplastic anaemia exists from the oral use of this drug. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the efficacy and side effect profile of topical chloramphenicol ointment on non-ocular surgical wounds.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception until 4 September 2017 was undertaken. Clinical studies of topical chloramphenicol ointment use on surgical wounds were included. Studies looking only at ocular use or those not available in full text or English were excluded. The review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

After full-text review, five articles were included. Two were randomized controlled trials, one was retrospective case control and two were case studies. There was evidence that chloramphenicol ointment use on surgical wounds produced a non-statistically significant reduction in infection rates. Delayed hypersensitivity and acute oesophagitis were noted as potential side effects of non-ocular topical use. Aplastic anaemia was not reported.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of clinical data regarding the use of topical chloramphenicol ointment on surgical wounds. Further randomized controlled trials may be beneficial in order to support or refute its use in this setting.

Do perioperative antibiotics reduce the risk of surgical-site infections following excision of ulcerated skin cancers? A Critically Appraised Topic

AIM

To review the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the risk of surgical-site infections (SSIs) following excision of ulcerated skin cancers.

SETTING AND DESIGN

Study selection, data extraction and analysis were carried out independently by four authors. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the English language were included.

INCLUDED STUDIES

RCTs in the English language in which patients received perioperative topical, intralesional or oral antibiotics for dermatological surgery, including Mohs micrographic surgery in general practice, dermatology or plastic surgery departments, were included.

OUTCOME

The proportion of participants developing SSI following excision of skin lesions.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were identified from our literature search of PubMed and Embase, which evaluated SSI following use of topical (n = 5), oral (n = 3), intramuscular (n = 2), intravenous (n = 1) and intralesional antibiotics (n = 2) in dermatological surgery. Two RCTs specifically investigated SSIs in ulcerated skin cancer excisions; one RCT investigated the SSI rate following surgical treatment specifically for ulcerated skin cancers in individuals randomized to topical antibiotics vs. oral cephalexin; and one RCT compared intravenous cefazolin with no antibiotic, demonstrating significant reduction in SSI rates for ulcerated tumours (P = 0·04).

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneity of the RCTs included in this study makes it difficult to make a direct comparison of the outcomes measured. High-quality evidence demonstrating a beneficial effect of the use of perioperative antibiotics to prevent SSI following excision of ulcerated skin cancers is lacking. In the absence of an evidence base, we propose that a well-designed multicentre RCT could evaluate the effect of perioperative antibiotics following excision of ulcerated tumours, and potentially reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescription.

Addressing Practice Gaps in Cutaneous Surgery: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Importance

Cutaneous surgery is performed by otolaryngologists, plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons, dermatologic surgeons, and some primary care physicians. Practice gaps exist among cutaneous surgeons, as do differences in how different physicians approach preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision-making.

Objective

To present the newest and best evidence to close common practice gaps in cutaneous surgery.

Evidence Review

We performed a detailed search of peer-reviewed publications that were identified through a search of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2016) using the literature search terms "cutaneous surgery," "Mohs micrographic surgery," "plastic surgery," in combination with "safety," "cost," "anesthesia," "anti-coagulation," "bleeding," "pain," "analgesia," "anxiety," or "infection," among others. Bibliographies from these references, as well as meta-analyses, were also reviewed.

Findings

A total of 73 peer-reviewed studies, including randomized clinical trials, were selected to support the conclusions of the article. Levels of evidence were analyzed for selected studies using recommendations from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons based on guidelines from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Large cutaneous surgical resections can be done effectively and safely, taking steps to assure patient comfort under local anesthesia. Medically necessary anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication should be continued during cutaneous surgery. In preparation for surgery, patient anxiety and pain must be addressed. Music and anxiolytics limit anxiety, prevent cardiovascular compromise, and improve patient satisfaction. Cutaneous surgeons and support staff should carefully consider the dose and injection angle of local anesthetic. Postoperative opioids and topical antibiotics might cause harm to patients and should be avoided. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen provide adequate pain control with fewer adverse effects than opioid medications.

Conclusions and Relevance

Clinicians performing cutaneous surgery should understand the importance of patient safety and comfort, as guided by recent evidence.

[How to optimize scarring in dermatologic surgery?]

Scarring is the response elicited by the skin surface to injury and loss of tissue material. Wound healing takes place through a complex natural repair system consisting of vascular, inflammatory and proliferative phenomena, followed by a remodelling and cell apoptosis phase. This incredible repair system is inevitable, but sometimes unpredictable due to individual differences based on multiple factors. The scar is the objective criterion of a skin surgery, both for the patient and the dermsurgeon. It is therefore crucial to establish with the patient during the preoperative consultation, the size and positioning of the expected scar, taking into account the oncologic, anatomic and surgical constraints. Scars can ideally blend into normal skin, but may also give rise to various abnormalities. We can manage and prevent these abnormalities by mastering initial inflammation, that may induce hyperpigmentation and hypertrophy. Early massage using cortocosteroid topic or anti-inflammatory moisturizers may be effective. Random individual scarring may be minimized by a dynamic personalized accompanying scarring.

Surgical site infections in dermatologic surgery: etiology, pathogenesis, and current preventative measures

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after dermatologic surgery continue to represent undesirable complications that affect patients in several aspects. The etiology and pathogenesis of SSIs are not completely understood, and as a result, current preventative measures are debatable.

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the current available literature specific to SSIs in dermatologic surgery. The pathogenesis of SSIs, factors contributing to SSIs, current preventative guidelines, and evidence supporting their use are explored.

METHODS

A review of the medical literature.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Most measures used to prevent SSIs in dermatologic surgery are based on studies of wounds in general surgery. Evidence specific to dermatologic surgery is scarce. More research related to the pathogenesis of SSIs is needed to establish effective preventative measures that are key to reducing incidences of SSIs.

Prophylactic antibiotics in dermatological surgery

This is a review of the common pathogens of surgical site infections, antibiotic coverage for particular anatomical sites, mechanisms by which surgical site infections occur and the latest data and recommendations for prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of surgical site infections, infective endocarditis and haematogenous joint infections. Recent evidence-based guidelines on surgical prophylaxis is for restricted indications and a shorter duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in situations where no clinical benefit of prolonged therapy has been proven, in order to minimise the potential adverse ecological and clinical effects associated with antibiotic therapy. This review recommends the cautious use of prophylactic antibiotics in dermatological surgery to help prevent the growing problem of bacterial resistance as well as other morbidity and health-care costs.

Gender differences in risk of bloodstream and surgical site infections

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients most at risk for hospital- and community-associated infections is one essential strategy for preventing infections.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether rates of community- and healthcare-associated bloodstream and surgical site infections varied by patient gender in a large cohort after controlling for a wide variety of possible confounders.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients discharged from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2008 (133,756 adult discharges and 66,592 pediatric discharges) from a 650-bed tertiary care hospital, a 220-bed community hospital, and a 280-bed pediatric acute care hospital within a large, academic medical center in New York, NY.

MAIN MEASURES

Data were collected retrospectively from various electronic sources shared by the hospitals and linked using patients' unique medical record numbers. Infections were identified using previously validated computerized algorithms.

KEY RESULTS

Odds of community-associated bloodstream infections, healthcare-associated bloodstream infections, and surgical site infections were significantly lower for women than for men after controlling for present-on-admission patient characteristics and events during the hospital stay [odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) were 0.85 (0.77-0.93), 0.82 (0.74-0.91), and 0.78 (0.68-0.91), respectively]. Gender differences were greatest for older adolescents (12-17 years) and adults 18-49 years and least for young children (<12 years) and older adults (≥ 70 years).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, men were at higher risk for bloodstream and surgical site infections, possibly due to differences in propensity for skin colonization or other anatomical differences.

Office based dermatological surgery and Mohs surgery: a prospective audit of surgical procedures and complications in a procedural dermatology practice

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Dermatologists commonly perform surgical procedures, including Mohs micrographic surgery, in an outpatient, office-based setting. Although this may be widely perceived to be safe and effective, formal data on the practice are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the range of surgical procedures and associated complications in an Australian specialist dermatology and Mohs surgery practice.

METHODS

All surgical procedures over a 55-week period were prospectively logged, with data collection on sex, age, type of procedure, body site, diagnosis and complications. All procedures were performed under conditions that were usual for the practice, with a combination of sterile and clean surgical techniques, depending on the procedure.

RESULTS

In all, 2370 surgical procedures were performed during the study period, including 934 Mohs surgery cases. Most procedures (68%) were performed on head and neck sites. A total of 56 complications were recorded in 51 patients. Bacterial wound infections occurred in 13 cases (0.5%). Bleeding complications occurred in five cases (0.2%). There were no complications requiring hospital admission or i.v. antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the view that dermatological surgery, including significant procedures such as Mohs micrographic surgery, flaps and grafts, can be performed on an ambulatory basis in an office-based procedure room setting, with low complication rates.

The role of topical antibiotics used as prophylaxis in surgical site infection prevention

Compared with systemic antibiotic therapy, the topical or local delivery of an antibiotic has many potential advantages. However, local antibiotics at the surgical site have received very limited approval in any of the surgical prophylaxis consensus guidelines that we are aware of. A review of the literature was carried out through searches of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed in the English language over a 30 year period between January 1980 and May 2010. Both retrospective and prospective studies were included, as well as meta-analyses. With regard to defining 'topical' or 'local' antibiotic application, the application of an antibiotic solution to the surgical site intraoperatively or immediately post-operatively was included. A number of surgical procedures have been shown to significantly benefit from perioperative topical prophylaxis, e.g. joint arthroplasty, cataract surgery and, possibly, breast augmentation. In obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery, topical surgical prophylaxis is also proven to be beneficial. The selective use of topical antibiotics as surgical prophylaxis is justified for specific procedures, such as joint arthroplasty, cataract surgery and, possibly, breast augmentation. In selective cases, such as obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery, topical surgical prophylaxis is also proven to be beneficial. Apart from these specific indications, the evidence for use of topical antibiotics in surgery is lacking in conclusive randomized controlled trials.

Heightened infection-control practices are associated with significantly lower infection rates in office-based Mohs surgery

BACKGROUND

Reported infection rates for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) range from less than 1% to 3.5%.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether lower infection rates are possible for MMS with a consistently applied infection-control regimen.

METHODS

A series of 832 consecutive patients with 950 tumors undergoing MMS formed the cohort for a retrospective study of infections before and after a program of heightened infection-control practices at a single-surgeon academic Mohs practice. The sterility upgrade included jewelry restrictions, alcohol hand scrub before stages and reconstruction, sterile gloves and (during reconstruction) sterile gowns for staff, and sterile towels and dressings for patients during Mohs stages.

RESULTS

Infection rate was 2.5% (9 infections/365 tumors) before the sterility upgrade and 0.9% (5 infections/585 tumors) after, a statistically significant difference (p=.04).

CONCLUSION

MMS already has low rates of infection, but this study shows that rigorous infection-control practices can significantly affect infection rates. The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters.

Prospective study of wound infections in Mohs micrographic surgery using clean surgical technique in the absence of prophylactic antibiotics

BACKGROUND

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has a low rate of surgical site infection (SSI) without the use of prophylactic antibiotics. In the studies to date, there has been variation in the steps taken by each surgeon to prevent SSIs but in all cases sterile technique was used during wound reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the rate of SSIs among patients undergoing MMS with the use of clean surgical technique for all steps of MMS including wound reconstruction in the absence of prophylactic antibiotics.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 1000 patients undergoing MMS using clean surgical technique for SSIs. Clean surgical technique includes the use of clean surgical gloves and towels and a single pack of sterile instruments for all steps including wound reconstruction.

RESULTS

There were 11 SSIs among 1000 patients with 1204 tumors, with an overall rate of infection of 0.91% (95% confidence interval 0.38%-1.45%). Three of the 11 infections were complications of hematomas. Four of the 11 infections occurred in flap closures, which had the highest rate of SSIs of 2.67% (4/150).

LIMITATIONS

The study was a prospective, single-institution uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the rate of SSIs with the use of clean surgical technique, in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis, for all steps of MMS including wound reconstruction. Our rate of SSIs of 0.91% is exceedingly low, underscoring the overall safety of MMS and its performance in the outpatient setting without the use of antibiotic prophylaxis or sterile technique.