The EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking (EUPEMEN) project and recommendations for perioperative care in colorectal surgery: a quality improvement study

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus supporting enhanced recovery programs, their full implementation in such a context is difficult due to conventional practices within various groups of professionals. The goal of the EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking (EUPEMEN) project was to bring together the expertise and experience of national clinical professionals who have previously helped deliver major change programs in their countries and to use them to spread enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (ERAS) in Europe. The specific aim of this study is to present and discuss the key points of the proposed recommendations for colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five partners from university hospitals in four European countries developed the project as partners. Following a non-systematic review of the literature, the European consensus panel generated a list of recommendations for perioperative care in colorectal surgery. A list of recommendations was formulated and distributed to collaborators at each center to allow modifications or additional statements. These recommendations were then discussed in three consecutive meetings to share uniform ERAS protocols to be disseminated.

RESULT

The working group developed (1) the EUPEMEN online platform to offer, free of charge, evidence-based standardized perioperative care protocols, learning activities, and assistance to health professionals interested in enhancing the recovery of their patients; (2) the preparation of the EUPEMEN Multimodal Rehabilitation manuals; (3) the training of the trainers to teach future teachers; and (4) the dissemination of the results in five multiplier events, one for each partner, to promote and disseminate the protocols.

CONCLUSION

The EUPEMEN project allowed the sharing of the expertise of many professionals from four different European countries with the objective of training the new generations in the dissemination of ERAS protocols in daily clinical practice through a new learning system. This project was proposed as an additional training tool for all the enhanced recovery program teams.

Small animal patient preoperative preparation: a review of common antiseptics, comparison studies, and resistance

This review aims to describe commonly used antiseptics in veterinary medicine including their mechanism of action, spectrum of activity, potential adverse effects, and application techniques. Additionally, it provides a review of the veterinary literature comparing antiseptics, a discussion of effectiveness and efficacy studies, and the potential for increased resistance to biocides and antimicrobials. This review concludes that appropriate selection and use is necessary to prevent the occurrence of surgical site infections, adverse effects, and potential for increasing resistance to antimicrobials. Continued research is needed to fill gaps in the current knowledge such as optimal preparation procedures for various surgical sites, standardization of efficacy and effectiveness testing, and the clinical impact of decreased susceptibility to chlorhexidine and other antiseptics.

Impact of Infection Control on Prevalence of Surgical Site Infections in a Large Tertiary Care Hospital in Haiphong City

Few point prevalence surveys (PPS) have been conducted in Vietnam on Surgical Site Infections (SSI) or antimicrobial use in surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the PPSs of SSI before and after implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP) and infection control (IC) in a Vietnamese tertiary care hospital. ASP and IC practices were implemented in operating rooms and the orthopedic department, including antibiotic training, skin preparation, hand hygiene, gloves and sterile instruments, and SSIs risk factors. A PPS of SSIs and antimicrobial use was performed in January 2016 according to methods from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, before ASP and IC, and in December 2019. Information recorded included surgical data, antibiotic prophylaxis, microorganisms, and SSI risk factors. Skin preparation compliance assessed preoperative washing and antisepsis. SSI prevalence was 7.8% in 2016 versus 5.4% in 2019 (p = 0.7). The use of prophylactic antibiotics decreased from 2016 to 2019. A third-generation cephalosporin was prescribed more than 48 h after surgery for most patients. Skin preparation compliance increased from 54.4% to 70.5% between assessments. The decreased SSI, although non-statistically significant, warrants continuing this program. Vietnamese hospitals must provide comprehensive IC education to healthcare workers to address the prevention of SSI and establish IC policies.

Is there a role for antibiotics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis?

Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common reasons for adult outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, though there is little clinical evidence to support this practice, especially for chronic rhinosinusitis. Despite considerable research, the etiology of chronic rhinosinusitis, including the pathogenic role of microbes, remains poorly understood. Rigorous studies of the efficacy of antibiotic treatment of chronic sinusitis are surprisingly few in number and the results are somewhat conflicting. This review article will review the rationales for and against the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with antibiotics, based on current evidence and understanding of pathophysiology, and will also summarize the current guidelines.

Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Post-Surgical Mediastinitis in Adults Consensus Guidelines of the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular Infections (SEICAV), the Spanish Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SECTCV) and the Biomedical Research Centre Network for Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES)

This is a consensus document of the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular Infections (SEICAV), the Spanish Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SECTCV) and the Biomedical Research Centre Network for Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES). These three entities have brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts that includes anaesthesiologists, cardiac and cardiothoracic surgeons, clinical microbiologists, infectious diseases and intensive care specialists, internal medicine doctors and radiologists. Despite the clinical and economic consequences of sternal wound infections, to date, there are no specific guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of mediastinitis based on a multidisciplinary consensus. The purpose of the present document is to provide evidence-based guidance on the most effective diagnosis and management of patients who have experienced or are at risk of developing a post-surgical mediastinitis infection in order to optimise patient outcomes and the process of care. The intended users of the document are health care providers who help patients make decisions regarding their treatment, aiming to optimise the benefits and minimise any harm as well as the workload.

Preventing complications in dermatologic surgery: Presurgical concerns

Cutaneous surgery has become critical to comprehensive dermatologic care, and dermatologists must therefore be equipped to manage the risks associated with surgical procedures. Complications may occur at any point along the continuum of care, and therefore assessing, managing, and preventing risk from beginning to end becomes essential. This review focuses on preventing surgical complications pre- and postoperatively as well as during the surgical procedure.

Recent developments in controlling sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery and measures to enhance sternal healing

One of the major risks of cardiac surgery is the occurrence of infection at the sternal wound site. Sternal wound infections are primarily classified into superficial infection and deep sternal wound infection or mediastinitis. A patient is diagnosed with mediastinitis if microorganisms are present in their mediastinal tissue/fluid or with the observation of sternal wound infection during operation and with characteristic symptoms including chest pain, fever, and purulent drainage from the mediastinum. It is usually caused by Staphylococcal organisms in 75.8% of cases and the rest is caused by gram-negative bacteria. Currently, in cardiac surgery, hemostasis is achieved using electrocautery and bone wax, and the sternum is closed using wire cerclage. Several studies show that bone wax can act as a nidus for initiation of infection and the oozing blood and hematoma at the site can promote the growth of infectious organisms. Many research groups have developed different types of biomaterials and reported on the prevention of infection and healing of the sternum. These materials are reported to have both positive and negative effects. In this review, we highlight the current clinical practices undertaken to prevent infection and bleeding as well as research progress in this field and their outcomes in controlling bleeding, infection, and enhancing sternal healing.

Are three antiseptic paints needed for safe preparation of the surgical field? A prospective cohort study with 239 patients

Background

Preoperative skin antisepsis is an essential component of safe surgery. However, it is unclear how many antiseptic paints are needed to eliminate bacteria prior to incision. This study compared microbial skin counts after two and three antiseptic paints.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study in non-emergency patients receiving a cardiac/abdominal surgery with standardized, preoperative skin antisepsis consisting of an alcoholic compound and either povidone iodine (PI) or chlorhexidine (CHX). We obtained three skin swabs from the participant’s thorax/abdomen using a sterile template with a 25 cm² window: After collection of the first swab prior to skin antisepsis, and once the second and third application of PI/CHX had dried out, we obtained a second and third swab, respectively. Our primary outcome was the reduction in microbial skin counts after two and three paints of PI/CHX.

Results

Among the 239 enrolled patients, there was no significant difference in the reduction of mean square root-transformed microbial skin counts with three versus two paints (P = 0.2). But distributions of colony forming units (CFUs) decreased from paint 2 to 3 in a predefined analysis (P = 0.002). There was strong evidence of an increased proportion of patients with zero CFU after paint 3 versus paint 2 (P = 0.003). We did not identify risk factors for insufficient reduction of microbial skin counts after two paints, defined as the detection of > 5 CFUs and/or ≥ 1 pathogens.

Conclusions

In non-emergency surgical patients, three antiseptic paints may be superior to two paints in reducing microbial skin colonization prior to surgery.

Surgical site infection prevention measures in General Surgery: Position statement by the Surgical Infections Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery

Surgical site infection is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs, as well as a poorer patient quality of life. Many hospitals have adopted scientifically-validated guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. Most of these protocols have resulted in improved postoperative results. The Surgical Infection Division of the Spanish Association of Surgery conducted a critical review of the scientific evidence and the most recent international guidelines in order to select measures with the highest degree of evidence to be applied in Spanish surgical services. The best measures are: no removal or clipping of hair from the surgical field, skin decontamination with alcohol solutions, adequate systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (administration within 30-60minutes before the incision in a single preoperative dose; intraoperative re-dosing when indicated), maintenance of normothermia and perioperative maintenance of glucose levels.

Pre-operative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate baths and wipes does not prevent postoperative surgical site infection in outpatient pediatric urologic inguinal and scrotal surgery

INTRODUCTION

To reduce surgical site infections (SSI), many institutions utilize pre-operative antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) baths and/or wipes. CHG reduces bacterial colonization of the skin, but it is unclear whether this reduces SSI, and current guidelines from the American College of Surgeons, the Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization do not support this practice. There are several factors that increase the risk of SSI in adults, but there is limited understanding of these factors in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to describe the proportion of pediatric patients undergoing hernia/hydrocele repair and/or orchiopexy who develop a postoperative (postop) SSI and to determine whether pre-operative CHG baths/wipes were associated with SSI. The secondary objectives were to identify other factors associated with SSI and to estimate the cost of CHG baths/wipes in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

Pre-operative antisepsis with CHG baths/wipes was implemented at the authors institution in 2006. The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 0-18 years undergoing hernia/hydrocele repair and/or orchiopexy by a pediatric urologist at their institution before (2004) and after (2008) the introduction of CHG. The authors compared the proportion of patients with SSI in the no CHG and CHG groups and evaluated for factors associated with SSI. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. The cost of CHG baths and wipes was estimated using institutional fees in 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 543 patients met inclusion criteria, 203 in the no CHG group and 340 in the CHG group. The overall rate of SSI was 0.92%. There was no association between use of CHG and SSI. No patient or peri-operative factors were associated with development of SSI. There were no CHG-associated adverse events. The cost of materials was estimated at $3.29/patient ($1118.60 for 340 cases in 2008) in 2018 US dollars.

DISCUSSION

SSI is not common in pediatric patients undergoing hernia/hydrocele repair or orchiopexy. In the present study, pre-operative antisepsis with CHG baths/wipes is not associated with a reduction in SSI and carries additional cost.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the use of pre-operative antisepsis with CHG baths/wipes in an exclusively pediatric population. In the study, CHG baths/wipes add cost with no clear benefit for reducing SSI in pediatric patients undergoing hernia/hydrocele repair and/or orchiopexy.

Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropanol and 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol for skin antisepsis in reducing surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery: the CLEAN 2 study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the second most frequent cause of healthcare-associated infection worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Cardiac surgery is clean surgery with low incidence of SSI, ranging from 2% to 5%, but with potentially severe consequences.Perioperative skin antisepsis with an alcohol-based antiseptic solution is recommended to prevent SSI, but the superiority of chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol over povidone iodine (PVI)-alcohol, the two most common alcohol-based antiseptic solutions used worldwide, is controversial. We aim to evaluate whether 2% CHG-70% isopropanol is more effective than 5% PVI-69% ethanol in reducing the incidence of reoperation after cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The CLEAN 2 study is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial of 4100 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Patients will be randomised in 1:1 ratio to receive either 2% CHG-70% isopropanol or 5% PVI-69% ethanol for perioperative skin preparation. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients undergoing any re-sternotomy between day 0 and day 90 after initial surgery and/or any reoperation on saphenous vein/radial artery surgical site between day 0 and day 30 after initial surgery. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT 2017-005169-33 and NCT03560193.

Evaluation of 4 Presurgical Skin Preparation Methods in Mice

Mice routinely undergo surgical procedures for use in research; however, studies of skin preparation methods to achieve antisepsis are rare. The present study evaluated 4 skin preparation treatments: depilatory agent followed by povidone-iodine and alcohol scrub; depilatory agent followed by povidone-iodine and saline scrub; electric clippers followed by povidone-iodine and alcohol scrub; and electric clippers followed by povidone-iodine and saline scrub. Swabs for bacterial culture were obtained immediately after hair removal and after scrubbing to measure the reduction in bacterial load. Full-thickness incisions were assigned ASEPSIS wound scores and examined histologically on days 0, 1, and 7 after surgery. Neither bacterial load growth nor ASEPSIS wound scores differed among any of the treatments. Histopathology revealed statistically significant but biologically irrelevant differences. Overall all treatment methods achieved acceptable bacterial load reduction and surgical site healing.

A review of the AATS guidelines for the prevention and management of sternal wound infections

Purpose

To summarize the AATS guidelines for the prevention and treatment of sternal wound infections.

Methods

The current AATS guidelines for the prevention of sternal wound infections during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, and the most effective methods and techniques to treat sternal wound infections were reviewed.

Results

The guidelines identified multiple interventions that can be instituted during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods to reduce sternal wound infections during cardiac surgery. These include the use of perioperative antibiotics, glycemic control to maintain serum glucose < 180 mg/dl, avoidance of bone wax and the use of vancomycin paste to the sternal edges, and figure of eight suture techniques to re-approximate the sternum. Wound Vac therapy should be instituted whenever possible to treat and enhance recovery from mediastinitis.

Conclusions

The prevention of sternal wound infections and mediastinitis can be achieved by adherence to the AATS guidelines. The institution of these interventions requires a multi-disciplinary team effort among surgeons, anesthesiologists, referring physicians, nurses, and OR and ICU personnel.

Analysis of a ten step protocol to decrease postoperative spinal wound infections

AIM

To define a ten-step protocol that reduced the incidence of surgical site infection in the spine surgery practice of the senior author and evaluate the support for each step based on current literature.

METHODS

In response to unexplained increased infection rates at our institution following spine surgery, a ten-step protocol was implemented: (1) preoperative glycemic management based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); (2) skin site preoperative preparation with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate disposable cloths; (3) limit operating room traffic; (4) cut the number of personnel in the room to the minimum required; (5) absolutely no flash sterilization of equipment; (6) double-gloving with frequent changing of outer gloves; (7) local application of vancomycin powder; (8) re-dosing antibiotic every 4 h for prolonged procedures and extending postoperative coverage to 72 h for high-risk patients; (9) irrigation of subcutaneous tissue with diluted povidone-iodine solution after deep fascial closure; and (10) use of DuraPrep skin preparation at the end of a case before skin closure. Through an extensive literature review, the current data available for each of the ten steps was evaluated.

RESULTS

Use of vancomycin powder in surgical wounds, routine irrigation of surgical site, and frequent changing of surgical gloves are strongly supported by the literature. Preoperative skin preparation with chlorhexidine wipes is similarly supported. The majority of current literature supports control of HbA1c preoperatively to reduce risk of infection. Limiting the use of flash sterilization is supported, but has not been evaluated in spine-specific surgery. Limiting OR traffic and number of personnel in the OR are supported although without level 1 evidence. Prolonged use of antibiotics postoperatively is not supported by the literature. Intraoperative use of DuraPrep prior to skin closure is not yet explored.

CONCLUSION

The ten-step protocol defined herein has significantly helped in decreasing surgical site infection rate. Several of the steps have already been shown in the literature to have significant effect on infection rates. As several measures are required to prevent infection, instituting a standard protocol for all the described steps appears beneficial.

Preoperative disinfection of foot and ankle: microbiological evaluation of two disinfection methods

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of a footbath in alcohol prior to preoperative disinfection on bacterial flora of the foot and ankle.

METHODS

Twenty-two volunteers underwent skin preparation mimicking pre-surgical disinfection. One foot was submerged in a bag filled with 70% ethanol containing 10% IPA for 5 min after which it was painted with regular 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol. The other foot was only painted with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol. Swabs were taken at four locations: (1) under the nailfold of the first toe, (2) first webspace, (3) sinus tarsi and (4) pre-tibial. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the cultures was performed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference between the number of positive cultures between the two methods was observed. The number of colony forming units was statistically significantly lower on two locations in the footbath group (i.e., subungual and the first webspace) (median 1 versus median 92 p =0.03 and median 0 versus median 1 p =0.03, respectively). The number of cultures with heavy growth was lower in the footbath group under the nailfold of the first toe (5 versus 13 p =0.008). Thirty-eight different microorganisms were cultured.

CONCLUSION

A footbath in alcohol prior to regular preoperative skin antisepsis significantly reduces the amount of bacteria under the nailfold and in the first webspace. The number of cultures with heavy growth is lower after a footbath in alcohol.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Effect of Antibiotic-Coated Sutures on the Incidence of Surgical Site Infections in Abdominal Closures: a Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to determine if antibiotic-impregnated sutures for abdominal fascial closure prevent postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs), hernias, and/or dehiscence.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1946-2016) were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic-impregnated sutures to standard sutures for abdominal closure were eligible. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbooks definitions.

RESULTS

Four-hundred fifty articles were reviewed; five eligible studies (N = 3117) were identified. All studies routinely used prophylactic antibiotics. Overall risk of SSI in the antibiotic-impregnated suture group was 10.4 vs. 13.0% in the control group. Pooled data showed no difference in SSI between suture types (odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09, P = 0.15, I ² = 44%). There was no evidence of subgroup effect by suture material (polydioxanone vs. polyglactin 910; P = 0.19) or by comparing colorectal surgery studies to others (P = 0.67). There was a high risk of bias in two studies, one for high loss to follow-up and one for not using an intent-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis is the most comprehensive review on the utility of antibiotic-impregnated sutures in abdominal surgery to prevent SSI. We found no evidence to support routine use of these sutures.

Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: new guidelines

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines, if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in the United States. Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):3-10.

Alternatives to antibiotics for prevention of surgical infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is still the second most common healthcare-associated infection, after respiratory tract infection. SSIs are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates, and result in enormous healthcare costs. In the past decade, several guidelines have been developed that aim to reduce the incidence of SSI. Unfortunately, there is no consensus amongst the guidelines, and some are already outdated. This review discusses the recent literature regarding alternatives to antibiotics for prevention of SSI.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed to retrieve data on the prevention of SSI. The focus was on literature published in the past decade.

RESULTS

Prevention of SSI can be divided into preoperative, perioperative and postoperative measures. Preoperative measures consist of showering, surgical scrubbing and cleansing of the operation area with antiseptics. Perioperative factors can be subdivided as: environmental factors, such as surgical attire; patient-related factors, such as plasma glucose control; and surgical factors, such as the duration and invasiveness of surgery. Postoperative measures consist mainly of wound care.

CONCLUSION

There is a general lack of evidence on the preventive effectiveness of perioperative measures to reduce the incidence of SSI. Most measures are based on common practice and perceived effectiveness. The lack of clinical evidence, together with the stability of the high incidence of SSI (10 per cent for colorectal procedures) in recent decades, highlights the need for future research.

Preoperative bathing of the surgical site with chlorhexidine for infection prevention: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine is recommended as a measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) despite uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. This review aimed to assess the effect of bathing with 4% chlorhexidine on the prevention of SSIs in clean surgeries compared with bathing with placebo solution or soap.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews and the Cochrane manual were followed. Sources were MEDLINE and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases and manual search of references from evaluated studies. We included randomized studies evaluating clean surgical wounds and reporting SSIs after preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

A total of 243 primary studies were identified and 8 were considered methodologically appropriate based on the Jadad Scale. Data were gathered from 10,655 patients. The global SSI rate was 7.2%. The SSI rate for chlorhexidine bathing, placebo, and soap without antiseptic groups was 7.1%, 9.1%, and 5.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the infection rates was not found in the comparison between patients subjected to preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine versus placebo solution (relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.09). The same absence of benefit was observed comparing chlorhexidine bathing with soap (relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess the effect of preoperative chlorhexidine bathing on infection rates following clean surgery before the incorporation of this intervention in health care services.

Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent health care-associated infections. One of the practices to reduce their incidence is preoperative skin antisepsis. Two of the most commonly active components used are chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone iodine. Of 3 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2012 comparing antiseptics, 2 were in favor of chlorhexidine; however, the latest was unable to draw conclusions.

PURPOSE

To verify whether recent evidence supports the hypothesis that chlorhexidine in preoperative antisepsis is more efficient than other antiseptics in reducing SSI rates.

PROCEDURES

We conducted a systematic review from 2000-2014 in all languages. The primary end point was SSI incidence and secondary skin bacterial colonization.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. Meta-analysis were conducted for comparable studies for both outcomes. The results of the meta-analysis, including all of the studies in which chlorhexidine was compared with iodophor, were in favor of chlorhexidine for both SSI incidence (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.92) and bacterial skin colonization (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of chlorhexidine for preoperative skin antisepsis and high-quality evidence that the use of chlorhexidine is associated with fewer positive skin cultures. Further rigorous trials will be welcomed to attain stronger evidence as to the best antiseptic to be used before surgery.

Diversities in perceived knowledge and practice of preoperative skin preparation in Swedish orthopaedic surgery

Preoperative skin preparations may reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. This cross sectional questionnaire study aimed to identify the practice and knowledge of preoperative skin preparation in Swedish orthopaedic surgery departments. One hundred and six respondents (response rate 68%) from 13 Swedish orthopaedic departments reported a diversity of current recommendations and evidence, and good knowledge of skin preparations. This study found variations in practice and deviations from recommendations, despite high levels of knowledge.

Role of antiseptics in the prevention of surgical site infections

BACKGROUND

Antiseptics are chemical agents used to reduce the microbial population on the surface of the skin and are used in nearly every surgical procedure today. Despite this, there are currently no definitive guidelines on surgical preoperative antisepsis that indicate a specific regimen based on demonstration of superior efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This review serves to examine preoperative antisepsis, including cutaneous bacteriology, preoperative hair removal, preoperative decolonization, surgical attire, and the antiseptic agents themselves.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature on surgical antiseptics was performed.

RESULTS

Although numerous studies have demonstrated differences in bacterial colonization rates, few well-controlled investigations have demonstrated superiority of a given regimen. The alcohol-based iodophor and chlorhexidine products seem to exhibit greater efficacy than their aqueous counterparts.

CONCLUSION

More randomized controlled trials will be needed to determine if any specific regimen is most effective. At this point in time, product usage should be based on specific attributes relating to the products, such as iodophors around the eyes and/or ears to avoid irritation and aqueous-based solutions in hair bearing areas because of concern for flammability. Ultimately, it is up to the individual surgeon to tailor the optimal antiseptic regimen for their specific scope of practice.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Nasal photodisinfection and chlorhexidine wipes decrease surgical site infections: a historical control study and propensity analysis

BACKGROUND

Pre-operative decolonization therapy (DcTx) using chlorhexidine (CHG) body washes and/or intranasal mupirocin can reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), but compliance is often suboptimal.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of immediate DcTx using a novel approach of intranasal antimicrobial photodisinfection therapy (PDT) combined with CHG body wipes for the reduction of SSIs.

METHODS

Between 1(st) September 2011 and 31(st) August 2012, 3068 elective cardiac, orthopaedic, spinal, vascular, thoracic and neurosurgical patients were treated with CHG in the 24h preceding surgery, and received intranasal PDT in the pre-operative area. SSI surveillance methodology remained unchanged from previous years and patients were followed for one year. Results were compared with those for a four-year historical control group of 12,387 patients as well as those for a concurrent control group of 206 untreated patients.

FINDINGS

A significant reduction in the SSI rate was observed between treated patients and the historical control group [1.6% vs 2.7%, P = 0.0004, odds ratio (OR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2815-2.3453]. This significant reduction was maintained on intent-to-treat analysis (P = 0.021, OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.0476−1.7854) [corrected]. Overall compliance with DcTx was 94%. A 1:4 propensity score analysis of matched treated and untreated patients demonstrated that DcTx reduced the risk of SSIs significantly (P = 0.00026, z = 3.65).

CONCLUSION

The combination of CHG wipes and PDT immediately before surgery reduced SSIs, achieved excellent compliance, and was easily integrated into the pre-operative routine.

Observational study of patient and surgeon preoperative preparation in ten companion animal clinics in Ontario, Canada

Background

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a recognized risk of any surgical procedure in veterinary medicine. One of the keys to prevention of SSIs is reducing exposure of the surgical site to endogenous and exogenous microbes, beginning in the preoperative period. While guidelines are available for preoperative preparation procedures, there has been no objective investigation of compliance with these recommendations in veterinary practices. The objectives of this pilot study were to describe preoperative patient and surgeon preparation practices in a sample of non-equine companion animal veterinary clinics, and to determine if there were any areas that consistently did not meet current guidelines.

Results

Observation of preparation practices was performed in 10 clinics over 9–14 days each using up to 3 small wireless surveillance cameras. Data were coded for 148 surgical patients, and 31 surgeons performing 190 preoperative preparations. When patient hair removal was observed, it was most commonly done using clippers (117/133, 88%), and in only one case was it performed prior to anesthetic induction. Patient contact time with soap ranged from 10-462 s (average of clinic means 75 s, average of clinic medians 67 s), and with alcohol from 3-220 s (average of clinic means 44 s, average of clinic medians 37 s). Alcohol-based hand rub (AHR) was used preoperatively in 2/10 facilities, but soap-and-water hand scrub was most commonly used at all clinics. Proximal-to-distal scrubbing was noted in 95/142 (67%) of soap-and-water scrubs. Contact time during surgeon hand preparation ranged from 7-529 s (average mean 121 s, average median 122 s) for soap-and-water and from 4-123 s (average mean 25 s, average median 19 s) for AHR. No significant changes in practices were identified over time during the observation period. Practices that did not conform to guidelines available in major companion animal surgical textbooks were commonly observed.

Conclusions

Some preoperative preparation practices were relatively consistent between clinics in this study, while others were quite variable. Contact times with preoperative preparatory solutions for both patients and surgeons were often shorter than recommended. Evidence-based guidelines for these procedures in veterinary medicine should be established and implemented in order to help reduce preventable SSIs, while maintaining efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Skin preparation before hip replacement in emergency setting versus elective scheduled arthroplasty: bacteriological comparative analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroplasty needs to be performed in an emergency setting after intracapsular femur neck fracture, whereas pain makes preoperative skin preparation of the limb difficult and it may therefore be incomplete. To date no study has analyzed the patient's skin bacteriological status in these surgical conditions.

HYPOTHESIS

The skin's bacterial flora is quantitatively and qualitatively different in the trauma context compared to an elective scheduled arthroplasty for chronic hip disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of patients, undergoing hip arthroplasty and having the same preparation at the time of surgery but different skin preparation procedures the day before and the day of surgery, were prospectively compared: 30 patients operated on in an emergency setting for fracture (group A) had no skin preparation and 32 patients operated on in scheduled surgery (group B). Group A had no skin disinfection before going into surgery, whereas group B followed a predefined protocol the day before surgery. Skin samples were taken on gelose at three different stages of skin preparation at the time of surgery (before and after detersive cleaning, and at the end of the surgery) and on two sites (inguinal and greater trochanter). The bacteriological analysis took place after 48 hours of incubation.

RESULTS

Before detersive cleaning, group A had 3.6 times more bacteria than group B in the trochanter region and 2.7 times more in the inguinal area. After detersive cleaning, the contamination rate in the trochanter area was similar in both groups (group A: 10%; group B: 12.5%), but different in the inguinal region (group A: 33%; group B: 3%; P=0.002). At the end of the surgery, no difference was identified. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Bacillus cereus accounted for 44% and 37%, respectively, of the bacteria isolated. In addition, the frequency of pathogenic non-saprotrophic bacteria was higher in group A (38%) compared to group B (6%). At a mean follow-up of 9.7 months (range: 8-11 months), no infection of the surgical site was identified.

CONCLUSION

The dermal flora is more abundant and different when the patient is managed in an emergency context. Although effective in the trochanter area, cutaneous detersive cleaning in the operating room is insufficient in the inguinal area and the frequency of pathogenic bacteria warrants identical rigor in preoperative preparation in all situations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III. Prospective case - control study.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 7 August 2012), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE  (1950 to July Week 4 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 06, 2012), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 31), EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 3 August 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 29 June 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012 Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to June Week 3 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations June 27, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 25), EBSCO CINAHL (1882 to 21 June 2012) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fourth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.