Management of Established Surgical Site Infections

Bacterial biofilms on implanted suture material are a cause of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) has been estimated to occur in up to 5% of all procedures, accounting for up to 0.5% of all hospital costs. Bacterial biofilms residing on implanted foreign bodies have been implicated as contributing or causative factors in a wide variety of infectious scenarios, but little consideration has been given to the potential for implanted, submerged suture material to act as a host for biofilm and thus serve as a nidus of infection.

METHODS

We report a series of 15 patients who underwent open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (with musculofascial closure with permanent, multifilament sutures) who developed longstanding and refractory SSIs in the abdominal wall. Explanted suture material at subsequent exploration was examined for biofilm with confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

RESULTS

All 15 patients at re-exploration were found to have gross evidence of a "slimy" matrix or dense reactive granulation tissue localized to the implanted sutures. Confocal laser-scanning microscopy revealed abundant biofilm present on all sutures examined; FISH was able to identify the presence of specific pathogens in the biofilm. Complete removal of the foreign bodies (and attendant biofilms) resulted in all cases in cure of the SSI.

CONCLUSION

Bacterial biofilms on implanted suture material can manifest as persistent surgical site infections that require complete removal of the underlying foreign body substrata for resolution.

Chronic surgical site infection due to suture-associated polymicrobial biofilm

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common surgical complication; culture-negative SSI presents a particular problem in management.

METHODS

Examination of explanted foreign bodies (sutures) using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) after surgical exploration of a chronic culture-negative SSI.

RESULTS

Confocal microscopy (CM) demonstrated bacilli and cocci attached to the surface of the explanted sutures in a mixed biofilm. Fluorescent in situ hybridization confirmed that Staphylococci were components of the mixed biofilm. Removal of the foreign bodies (sutures) resolved the chronic infection.

CONCLUSION

Chronic SSI can arise from underlying bacterial biofilms, which can invest implanted foreign bodies and associated soft tissue surfaces.

Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

BACKGROUND

Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006. For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered. Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.

RESULTS

A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.

CONCLUSION

The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.