A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds

Delayed versus primary closure to minimize risk of surgical-site infection for complicated appendicitis: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial using counterfactual prediction modeling

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) following complicated appendectomy in individual patients receiving delayed primary closure (DPC) versus primary closure (PC) after adjustment for individual risk factors.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) with prediction model.

SETTING

Referral centers across Thailand.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent appendectomy via a lower-right-quadrant abdominal incision due to complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a published RCT was performed applying a counterfactual prediction model considering interventions (PC vs DPC) and other significant predictors. A multivariable logistic regression was applied, and a likelihood-ratio test was used to select significant predictors to retain in a final model. Factual versus counterfactual SSI risks for individual patients along with individual treatment effect (iTE) were estimated.

RESULTS

In total, 546 patients (271 PC vs 275 DPC) were included in the analysis. The individualized prediction model consisted of allocated intervention, diabetes, type of complicated appendicitis, fecal contamination, and incision length. The iTE varied between 0.4% and 7% for PC compared to DPC; ∼38.1% of patients would have ≥2.1% lower SSI risk following PC compared to DPC. The greatest risk reduction was identified in diabetes with ruptured appendicitis, fecal contamination, and incision length of 10 cm, where SSI risks were 47.1% and 54.1% for PC and DPC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this secondary analysis, we found that most patients benefited from early PC versus DPC. Findings may be used to inform SSI prevention strategies for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Superficial surgical site infection in delayed primary vs primary. Wound closure in complicated appendicitis

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Wound infection is the most common post-operative complication encountered after open appendectomy. Various studies have compared the risk of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in primary closure (PC) and delayed primary closure (DPC) of wounds. However, there is no uniform consensus regarding the method of wound closure.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study is to compare the two wound closure techniques.</br> <b><br>Material and methods:</b> This is a prospective study which enrolled 50 patients who underwent open appendectomy. The patients' demographics, characteristics, and operative findings were recorded. Those who were older than 18 years and had an appendectomy with a right lower quadrant incision were included. Patients with any comorbidity, morbid obesity, or pregnancy were excluded. Patients were randomized to undergo two techniques of wound closure: PC and DPC. During follow- -up at 1 week and 1 month, SSI, post-op pain, and LOS were compared among the two groups. Clinical assessment included the Visual Analog Scale (1-10) for pain.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> In our study, the incidence of SSI in the DPC group was significantly lower than in the PC group (p = 0.0002), while post-op pain and LOS were not significantly different between the two groups.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> We concluded that DPC was superior to PC in terms of reducing the incidence of superficial SSI, but with respect to post-op pain and LOS, the two techniques of wound closure were not different.</br>.

Practical Review on Delayed Primary Closure: Basic Science and Clinical Applications

Wound healing complications present a significant burden on both patients and health-care systems, and understanding wound healing principles is crucial across medical and surgical specialties to help mitigate such complications. One of these longstanding principles, specifically delayed primary closure (DPC), described as mechanically closing a wound after several days of secondary intention healing, lacks clear consensus on its definition, indications, and outcomes. This practical review examines wound healing fundamentals, focusing on DPC, its execution, indications, and comparative outcomes. A PubMed literature search was conducted to retrieve studies on DPC. Inclusion criteria included comparative studies assessing outcomes and complications between DPC and other closure techniques, as well as articles investigating DPC's underlying physiology. Twenty-three comparative studies met inclusion criteria. DPC wounds have significantly higher partial pressure of oxygen, higher blood flow, and higher rates of collagen synthesis and remodeling activity, all of which help explain DPC wounds' superior mechanical strength. DPC seems most beneficial in contaminated wounds, such as complicated appendectomies, postcardiac surgery wounds, and complicated abdominal wall reconstructions, where it has been associated with lower rates of surgical site infections. This practical review provides an evidence-based approach to DPC, its physiology, technique, and indications. Based on the existing literature, the authors recommend that DPC wounds should be dressed in saline/betadine soaks, changed and irrigated daily, with delayed closure lasting between 3 and 5 days or until the infection has resolved. The clearest indications for DPC are in the context of contaminated abdominal surgery and sternal wound dehiscence post cardiac surgery.

Risk Factors for Post-appendectomy Surgical Site Infection in Laparoscopy and Laparotomy - Retrospective Cohort Study

Background Appendicitis is a frequent emergency condition. Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common complication of appendectomy. Despite improvements in infection control, SSIs continue to cause harm, prolonged hospital stays, and even death. Objective The objective of this study is to compare the risk of developing surgical site infections (SSIs) between open laparotomy and laparoscopic appendectomies in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared laparotomy and laparoscopy for post-operative surgical site infection among patients who underwent an appendectomy at King Fahad Hospital (KFH) in Albaha, Saudi Arabia. Medical record numbers (MRNs) of patients who met the inclusion criteria were collected to build the sampling frame. From the final sampling frame, simple random sampling using a random number generator was used to draw a representative sample. Data were collected from the surgical health records of the patients. The collected data included patients' demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, ordered imaging studies, pre-operative shaving, type and duration of surgery, intraoperative findings, and signs of wound inflammation. Results The total number of patients included in the analysis was 256, who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis. Among those who underwent laparoscopy, 5.7% had to be converted to open laparotomy. Signs of surgical wound inflammation were found in 10.2% of the patients. Patients who underwent open laparotomy had a significantly higher risk of wound infection (RR=3.1, p-value=0.001). Further analysis revealed an effect modification of pre-operative shaving. Open laparotomy has a higher risk of wound infection among patients who have not had pre-operative shaving (RR=4.1 vs. RR=2.6), while both risks were statistically significant (p-value=0.033 and p-value=0.035), respectively. Complicated cases in intra-operative findings were found to have a higher risk of post-appendectomy SSI. Conclusion This study demonstrates that laparoscopic appendectomy carries a lower risk of surgical site infection (SSI) compared to open laparotomy. Additionally, pre-operative shaving of the surgical site was found to increase the incidence of SSI. Healthcare providers can use this information to enhance their practice and reduce the occurrence of surgical site infections. Whenever possible, laparoscopic appendectomy should be preferred over open laparotomy due to its substantially lower SSI risk. We also recommend vigilant monitoring of complicated appendectomy, particularly in cases of ruptured appendicitis, for signs of SSI.

Suturing Dermatotraction Techniques in Closing Fasciotomy Wounds: A Systematic Review

A surgical patient post-fasciotomy presents a challenge to restore the cover of the muscle groups, and the use of the suturing dermatotraction techniques presents a cheap and easy means of native cover. This systematic review of case series and case-control study explored the trend of this technique, including duration of delayed primary wound closure, complications, and failure rates. A literature review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), yielding a combined total of 820 articles between 1946 and June 18, 2022. Human studies with suturing dermatotraction techniques were included. Sixteen (16) studies reviewed met the criteria. The basic anatomy of the dermatotraction technique involves an anchor point on the skin, a material for traction, and a suture pattern. The shoelace technique was the predominant suture pattern, with staples as skin anchor material/method and silastic vessel loops as traction sling used by 11 studies. Modifications of this method included the use of intradermal Prolene sutures and pediatric catheters. The shortest duration for skin apposition was two days, and the longest was 113 days. Complications were comparable to that of surgical wounds and thus may not be attributable to the technique itself. Studies reviewed showed that superficial and early complications were more likely than deep or delayed complications. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and skin graft salvaged a few failed closures in two studies. There are varying practices of tightening rates with reports ranging from daily to every 72 hours. The rate of tightening and disease burden may account for the wide range of reported delayed primary closure. Most of the studies reviewed closed fasciotomy wounds with this technique within an average of <10 days. It is relatively cheaper, carries a low morbidity burden, and has multiple reported success in the closure of fasciotomy wounds in this review and thus should have an increased adoption as a first approach in managing fasciotomy wounds, especially in low-income countries.

“Negotiating a new normality” - a longitudinal qualitative exploration of the meaning of living with an open surgical wound

Purpose

Little is known about the experiences of people living with open surgical wounds. These wounds are common and predominantly affect young and actively working people. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the meaning of living with open surgical wounds.

Methods

A qualitative exploratory study was conducted. We collected data using two individual interviews with each of ten participants (aged between 18–73 years) who had open surgical wounds. Our analytical approach was based on qualitative content analysis. Methods are reported using COREQ guidelines.

Results

We found that the meaning of living with open surgical wounds is shaped by five subthemes: “enduring healing”, “life disruption”, “adapting to a new reality”, “striving for healing” and “returning to normal life;” all under an overarching theme of “negotiating a new normality”.

Conclusion

Participants’ well-being and everyday living are greatly impacted by open surgical wounds. Findings from this study emphasize that open surgical wounds are a long-term condition with a typical “chronicity” trajectory; this brings a new perspective to previous findings of studies on living with complex wounds. This study has also highlighted areas for further research, related to improving individuals’ experience of living with open surgical wounds.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Delayed Primary Closure for Contaminated Abdominal Wounds

Background. Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) may be effective for severely contaminated wounds. We investigated the safety and efficacy of NPWT with delayed primary closure (DPC) for preventing SSI. Methods. For patients with contaminated and dirty/infected surgical wounds after an emergency laparotomy, the abdominal fascia was closed with antibacterial absorbent threads and the skin was left open. Negative pressure (−80 mmHg) was applied through the polyurethane foam, which was replaced on postoperative days 3 and 7. DPC was performed when sufficient granulation was observed. The duration and adverse events of NPWT, the development of SSI, and the postoperative hospital stay were retrospectively reviewed. Results. We analyzed the cases of patients with contaminated (n = 15) and dirty/infected wounds (n = 7). The median duration of NPWT was 7 days (range 5–11 days). NPWT was discontinued in one (4.5%) patient due to wound traction pain. SSI developed in seven patients (31.8%), with incisional SSI in one (4.5%) and organ/space SSI in six (27.3%). The median postoperative hospital stay was 17 days (range 7–91 days). There was no significant relationship between postoperative hospital stay and wound classification ( $P=0.17$ ) or type of SSI ( $P=0.07$ ). Conclusion. Prophylactic NPWT with DPC was feasible and may be particularly suitable for severely contaminated wounds, with a low incidence of incisional SSI.

Superficial Surgical Site Infection in Delayed Primary Vs Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2162413/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

1.1 Background Wound infection is the most common post-op complication encountered after open appendectomy. Various studies comparing risk of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in primary closure (PC) and delayed primary closure (DPC) of wound has been conducted in the past. But there is no uniform consensus regarding the method of wound closure. So aim of this study was comparison of the two wound closure techniques. 1.2 Material and Methods This was prospective study which enrolled 50 patients who underwent open appendectomy. Patients’ demographics, characteristics and operative findings were recorded. Those who were elder than 18 years and had appendectomy with a right lower quadrant incision were included. Patients with any comorbidity, morbid obesity and pregnancy were excluded. Patients were randomized to undergo two techniques of wound closure namely PC and DPC. On follow-up at one week and one month, SSI, post-op pain and LOS were compared among two groups. Clinical assessment included a visual analog scale (1-10) for pain. 1.3 Results In our study incidence of SSI in DPC group was significantly lower when compared to PC group (p value=0.0002) while post-op pain and LOS were not significantly different on comparison between the two groups. 1.4 Conclusion We concluded that DPC was superior to PC of wound in terms of reduction of incidence of superficial SSI but with respect to post-op pain and LOS the two techniques of wound closure were not different.

Implementing a surgical site infection prevention bundle for emergency appendectomy: Worth the effort or waste of time?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and impact of an intraoperative surgical site infection prevention bundle for emergency appendectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency appendectomy were prospectively included during a 10-year study period (2011-2020). The care bundle was implemented as of November 1, 2018, and focused on 4 intraoperative items (disinfection, antibiotic prophylaxis, induction temperature control >36.5°C, and intracavity lavage). The primary outcome was the compliance to bundle items. Thirty-day surgical site infections were assessed by the independent Swiss National SSI Surveillance Program (2011 to October 2018) and by an institutional audit (November 2018-2020). Independent risk factors for surgical site infection were identified through multinominal logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1,901 patients, 449 (23.6%) were included after bundle implementation. Overall surgical site infection rate was 111 (5.8%). In 42 patients with surgical site infection (37.8%), antibiotic treatment alone was done, and additional surgical management was necessary in 31 patients (27.9%), computed tomography-guided drainage in 30 patients (27%), and bedside wound opening in 9 cases (8.1%). Overall compliance to the bundle was 79.9%. Overall surgical site infection rates were decreased after bundle implementation (17/449 [3.8%] vs 94/1,452 [6.5%], P = .038), mainly due to a decrease in superficial incisional infections (P = .014). Independent risk factors for surgical site infection were surgical duration ≥60 minutes (odds ratio: 1.66, P = .018), contamination class IV (odds ratio: 2.64, P < .001), and open or converted approach (odds ratio: 4.0, P < .001), and the bundle was an independent protective factor (odds ratio: 0.58, P = .048).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an intraoperative surgical site infection prevention bundle was feasible and might have a beneficial impact on surgical site infection rates after emergency appendectomy.

Primary Closure or Delayed Primary Closure? Assessment of Optimum Management of Surgical Wounds for Perforated Appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Open appendectomy is the treatment of choice for perforated appendicitis. Perforated appendicitis is associated with a 15–20% risk of developing post-operative wound infection, which the later associated with increased morbidity as increasing post-operative pain, longer hospital stay, suppurative wounds, patient dissatisfaction and increase cost of treatment. Some literatures revealed inconsistent results related to the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary closures (DPC) and primary closure (PC) in open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. AIM: The objective of the study is to define the best practice of wound management in patients operated on for perforated appendicitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients having perforated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly grouped according to the method of managing the surgical incisions into two groups; patients with their incisions closed primarily (PC) and those with their incisions left open to be frequently dressed for 5 days with Betadine-soaked gauze packing till it become clean then closed (DPC). An infected wound was assigned as such if purulent discharge yielded from the incision site. Results to be addressed were the incidence of SSI and the hospitalization length. RESULTS: Out of the total 120 patients, 19.17 % developed SSI following closure of the incision. Patients managed by PC revealed higher rate of SSI than DPC group (32.8% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001) and longer hospitalization (8.3 vs. 6.4 days, with a p < 5%). CONCLUSION: DPC is preferred policy over PC when managing an open appendicectomy wounds for perforated appendicitis, as the former is associated with low incidence of wound infection and shorter hospitalization.

Glove and instrument changing to prevent bacterial contamination in infected wound debridement and closure procedures: A prospective observational study

Many surgeons use a single table of instruments for both excisional debridement and coverage/closure of infected wounds. This study investigates the effectiveness of a two-table set-up of sterile instruments, in addition to glove exchange, to reduce instrument cross-contamination during these procedures. This is a prospective, single-site, institutional review board-approved observational study of surgical debridements of infected wounds over a 17-month period. Two separate sterile surgical tables were used for each case: Table A for initial wound debridement (debridement set-up) and Table B for wound coverage/closure (clean set-up). Swabs of each table and its respective instruments were taken after debridement but prior to coverage/closure. The primary outcome of interest was bacterial growth at 48 hours. There were 72 surgical cases included in this study. Culture results of Table A demonstrated bacterial growth in 23 of 72 (32%) cases at 48 hours compared with 5of 72 (7%) from Table B (P = .001). These data suggest that there is significant bacterial contamination of surgical instruments used for debridement of infected wounds. Use of a two-table set-up reduced instrument cross-contamination by 78%, suggesting avoidable re-contamination of the wound.

Duration of post-operative antibiotic treatment in acute complicated appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most frequent aetiology of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical treatment, with an estimated lifetime risk between 7% and 8%. Antibiotics play a substantial role in treatment, and there is considerable debate regarding the duration of antibiotics in treating appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from inception until June 2019 for peer-reviewed studies that compared different durations of antibiotic treatment after appendicectomy for acute complicated appendicitis in adults. We dichotomized reported data into short- and extended-term antibiotic use and controlled for different definitional thresholds in the meta-analysis. We generated risk ratios using restricted maximum likelihood methods and mixed effects modelling for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Four observational studies involving 847 participants were included in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcomes of intra-abdominal infection, we did not find a statistically significant difference between extended- and short-term antibiotic strategies for intra-abdominal infection (Risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-1.74). Three randomized controlled trials involving 291 participants were included in a separate meta-analysis. We found that extended antibiotic usage was not associated with a statistically significant reduced risk for intra-abdominal infection (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.21-1.29) or surgical site skin infection (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.43-4.81).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that extended post-operative antibiotic treatment may not be associated with a reduced risk of intra-abdominal infection; however, meta-analysis was significantly limited by heterogeneity between studies and underpowered trials. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Appendicitis is a Severe Disease in Elderly Patients: A Twenty-Year Audit

Background and Objectives:

Life expectancy has increased substantially. Elderly patients currently represent a large part of patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of elderly patients who underwent appendectomy in a single French tertiary center.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2014. We used the French threshold of ≥ 75 y-old to define elderly patients. Hence, elderly patients who underwent appendectomy were compared to the younger group.

Results:

During the study period, 2,060 consecutive patients underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 52% of cases. Similar rates of laparoscopic approach were recorded in both groups, but conversion to open surgery was six times more frequent in elderly patients (17% vs. 3%; P < .0001). A higher incidence of complicated appendicitis was observed in the elderly group (63% vs. 13.6%; P < .0001). Complications occurred more frequently in the elderly group (46% vs. 8%; P < .0001). 30-d mortality was 0.15% for patients < 75 y and 6.15% for elderly patients (P < .0001). Unsuspected presence of an appendiceal neoplasm was higher (7.7%) in the elderly population.

Conclusion:

This study highlights the fact that appendicitis in the elderly is associated with a higher rate of complicated appendicitis, morbidity, and mortality.

Efficacy of delayed primary closure with intrawound continuous negative pressure and irrigation treatment after surgery for colorectal perforation

AIM

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) often occur after surgery for colorectal perforation. We introduced delayed primary closure (DPC) after intrawound continuous negative pressure and irrigation treatment (IW-CONPIT) to prevent SSIs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DPC after IW-CONPIT compared with primary closure (PC) after surgery for colorectal perforation.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective study including 22 patients who underwent DPC (DPC group) and 18 patients who underwent PC (PC group) at our hospital between April 2015 and January 2017. The primary outcome was the SSI rate. The secondary outcomes were other complications (<30 days), length of hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The SSI rate was significantly lower in the DPC group than in the PC group (40% vs. 94%, P = 0.0006). Moreover, superficial and deep incisional SSIs, infectious complications, and Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ 2 complications were also significantly diminished in the DPC group. Conversely, the length of hospital stay and costs were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that the significant independent protective factor against SSI after surgery for colorectal perforation was DPC after IW-CONPIT (odds ratio 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.25).

CONCLUSION

Delayed primary closure after IW-CONPIT reduced SSIs after surgery for colorectal perforation compared with PC.

A randomized trial analyzing the effects of primary versus delayed primary closure of incision on wound healing in patients with hollow viscus perforation

Objectives

Delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin has been suggested to decrease superficial surgical site infection (SSSI) in patients undergoing surgery for peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation, but there is no consensus. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary closure (PC) and DPC of the skin in terms of SSSI, fascial dehiscence and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Material and Methods

Sixty patients, undergoing emergency surgery for perforation peritonitis, were randomized to PC (n= 30) and DPC (n= 30). Patients in the DPC group underwent skin closure four or more days after surgery when the wound was clinically considered appropriate for closure. Patients in the PC group had skin closure at the time of surgery.

Results

Incidence of SSSI was significantly less in the DPC group (7.4%) compared to the PC (42.9%) (p= 0.004). However, the median time of DPC was the 10th POD, i.e., these wounds required considerable time to become clinically suitable for closure. Incidence of fascial dehiscence was comparable between the two groups (p= 0.67). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13.8 days in the DPC group compared to 13.5 days in PC; the difference was not significant (p= 0.825).

Conclusion

DPC of the skin incision resulted in the reduction of SSSI. However, this did not translate into a reduction in hospital stay, as it took considerable time for these wounds to become appropriate for DPC, thus bringing into question any real advantage of DPC over PC.

Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Followed by Delayed Primary Closure for Abdominal Wounds in Patients with Lower Gastrointestinal Perforations: Multicenter Prospective Study

Objectives:

The efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and its application to severely contaminated wounds sustained during surgery remain to be established. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of utilizing NPWT until delayed primary closure (DPC) by assessing the infection rates in patients with lower gastrointestinal perforations.

Methods:

This prospective multicenter cohort study included 56 patients that underwent abdominal surgery for lower gastrointestinal perforations in eight institutions, from February 2016 to May 2017. All patients received NPWT after surgery before attempting DPC. The extent of peritonitis was categorized according to Hinchey's classification. Patients in stages II-IV were included.

Results:

Five patients had surgical site infections (SSIs) during NPWT and did not receive a DPC (9%). Of the 51 patients that received DPCs, 44 had no infection (91%) and 7 developed SSIs after the DPC (13.7%). For stages II, III, and IV, the SSI rates were 0%, 22.6%, and 35.7%, respectively; the median (range) times to wound healing were 15 (10-36), 19 (11-99), and 19 (10-53) days, respectively. There were no significant differences between the stages.

Conclusions:

NPWT followed by DPC resulted in low infection rates in each peritonitis stage. This approach appears promising as an alternative to traditional DPC alone for treating lower gastrointestinal perforations.

Intraoperative surgical site infection control and prevention: a position paper and future addendum to WSES intra-abdominal infections guidelines

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) represent a considerable burden for healthcare systems. They are largely preventable and multiple interventions have been proposed over past years in an attempt to prevent SSI. We aim to provide a position paper on Operative Room (OR) prevention of SSI in patients presenting with intra-abdominal infection to be considered a future addendum to the well-known World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infections.

METHODS

The literature was searched for focused publications on SSI until March 2019. Critical analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group of experts; the literature review and the statements were evaluated by a Steering Committee of the WSES.

RESULTS

Wound protectors and antibacterial sutures seem to have effective roles to prevent SSI in intra-abdominal infections. The application of negative-pressure wound therapy in preventing SSI can be useful in reducing postoperative wound complications. It is important to pursue normothermia with the available resources in the intraoperative period to decrease SSI rate. The optimal knowledge of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics of antibiotics helps to decide when additional intraoperative antibiotic doses should be administered in patients with intra-abdominal infections undergoing emergency surgery to prevent SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

The current position paper offers an extensive overview of the available evidence regarding surgical site infection control and prevention in patients having intra-abdominal infections.

Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection Between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective:

To compare superficial surgical site infection (SSI) rates between delayed primary wound closure (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) for complicated appendicitis.

Background:

SSI is common in appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. DPC is preferentially used over PC, but its efficacy is still controversial.

Methods:

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 6 hospitals in Thailand, enrolling patients with gangrenous and ruptured appendicitis. Patients were randomized to PC (ie, immediately wound closure) or DPC (ie, wound closure at postoperative days 3–5). Superficial SSI was defined by the Center for Disease Control criteria. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery time, quality of life, and cost of treatment.

Results:

In all, 303 and 304 patients were randomized to PC and DPC groups, and 5 and 4 patients were lost to follow-up, respectively, leaving 300 and 298 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The superficial SSI rate was lower in the PC than DPC groups [ie, 7.3% (95% confidence interval 4.4, 10.3) vs 10% (95% CI 6.6, 13.3)] with a risk difference (RD) of −2.7% (−7.1%, 1.9%), but this RD was not significant. Postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery times, and quality of life were nonsignificantly different with corresponding RDs of 0.3 (−2.5, 3.0), −0.1 (−0.5, 0.3), −0.2 (−0.8, 0.4), and 0.02 (−0.01, 0.04), respectively. However, costs for PC were 2083 (1410, 2756) Baht cheaper than DPC (∼$60 USD).

Conclusions:

Superficial SSI rates for the PC group were slightly lower than DPC group, but this did not reach statistical significance. Costs were significantly lower for the PC group.

Primary Versus Delayed Primary Incision Closure in Contaminated Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Debates still exist whether delayed primary incision closure (DPC) could bring more benefits to patients suffering contaminated abdominal surgery. So, we want to determine whether DPC has advantage over primary incision closure (PC) in contaminated abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from January 1, 1980 to August 6, 2017. Bibliographies of potential eligibility were also retrieved. The primary outcome was the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and the second outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs were performed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Of the 12 studies included, five were from third world countries (i.e., India and Pakistan), and all of these demonstrated an improvement in SSI rate with DPC. When the fixed-effect model used, compared with PC, SSI was significantly reduced in DPC with a risk ratio of 0.64 (0.51-0.79) (P < 0.0001), and a significant difference in LOS between DPC and PC was also identified with a mean difference of 0.39 (0.17-0.60) (P = 0.0004). Although the random-effect model was used, no significant difference in SSI between DPC and PC was observed with a risk ratio of 0.65 (0.38-1.12) (P = 0.12), and no significant difference in LOS between DPC and PC was found with a mean difference of 1.19 (-1.03 to 3.41) (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

DPC may be the preferable choice in contaminated abdominal surgeries, especially in patients with high risk of infection, and particularly in resource constrained environments. In addition, more high-quality studies with well design are needed to provide clear evidence.

Choosing the Best Approach to Wound Management and Closure

This article aims to help the practitioner by providing the tools to decide which type of closure or healing is best in a given situation. An overview of the main criteria and the different approaches to wound closure is presented. Each wound must be considered as a unique problem that requires a clinician to take into account all of its characteristics and limits to determine the best management approach.

Clinical prediction score for superficial surgical site infection after appendectomy in adults with complicated appendicitis

Background

Superficial surgical site infection (SSI) is common after appendectomy. This study aims to determine a clinical prediction score for SSI after appendectomy in complicated appendicitis.

Methods

Data from randomized controlled trial of delayed versus primary wound closures in complicated appendicitis was used. Nineteen patient- and operative-related predictors were selected in the logit model. Clinical prediction score was then constructed using coefficients of significant predictors. Risk stratification was done by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Bootstrap technique was used to internal validate the score.

Results

Among 607 patients, the SSI incidence was 8.7% (95% CI 6.4, 11.2). Four predictors were significantly associated with SSI, i.e., presence of diabetes, incisional length > 7 cm, fecal contamination, and operative time > 75 min with the odds ratio of 2.6 (95% CI 1.2, 5.9), 2.8 (1.5, 5.4), 3.6 (1.9, 6.8), and 3.4 (1.8, 6.5), respectively. Clinical prediction score ranged from 0 to 4.5 with its discrimination concordance (C) statistic of 0.74 (95% CI 0.66, 0.81). Risk stratification classified patients into very low, low, moderate, and high risk groups for SSI when none, one, two, and more than two risk factors were presented with positive likelihood ratio of 1.00, 1.45, 3.32, and 9.28, respectively. A bootstrap demonstrated well calibration and thus good internal validation.

Conclusions

Diabetes, incisional length, fecal contamination, and operative time could be used to predict SSI with acceptable discrimination. This clinical risk prediction should be useful in prediction of SSI. However, external validation should be performed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT01659983), registered August 8, 2012

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13017-018-0186-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Open Surgical Incisions After Colorectal Surgery Improve Quality Metrics, But Do Patients Benefit?

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection is a frequent cause of morbidity after colorectal resection and is a quality measure for hospitals and surgeons. In an effort to reduce the risk of postoperative infections, many wounds are left open at the time of surgery for secondary or delayed primary wound closure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of delayed wound closure on the rate of surgical infections and resource use.

DESIGN

This retrospective propensity-matched study compared colorectal surgery patients with wounds left open with a cohort of patients with primary skin closure.

SETTINGS

The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program Participant Use file for 2014 was queried.

PATIENTS

A total of 50,212 patients who underwent elective or emergent colectomy, proctectomy, and stoma creation were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of postoperative infections and discharge to medical facilities were measured.

RESULTS

Surgical wounds were left open in 2.9% of colorectal cases (n = 1466). Patients with skin left open were broadly higher risk, as evidenced by a significantly higher median estimated probability of 30-day mortality (3.40% vs 0.45%; p < 0.0001). After propensity matching (n = 1382 per group), there were no significant differences between baseline characteristics. Within the matched cohort, there were no differences in the rates of 30-day mortality, deep or organ space infection, or sepsis (all p > 0.05). Resource use was higher for patients with incisions left open, including longer length of stay (11 vs 10 d; p = 0.006) and higher rates of discharge to a facility (34% vs 27%; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design and a large data set with a bias toward academic institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-matched colorectal cohort, secondary or delayed wound closure eliminates superficial surgical infections, but there was no decrease in deep or organ space infections. In addition, attention should be given to the possibility for increased resource use associated with open surgical incisions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A560.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy

Acute appendicitis (AA) develops in a progressive and irreversible manner, even if the clinical course of AA can be temporarily modified by intentional medications. Reliable and real-time diagnosis of AA can be made based on findings of the white blood cell count and enhanced computed tomography. Emergent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered as the first therapeutic choice for AA. Interval/delayed appendectomy at 6-12 wk after disease onset is considered as unsafe with a high recurrent rate during the waiting time. However, this technique may have some advantages for avoiding unnecessary extended resection in patients with an appendiceal mass. Non-operative management of AA may be tolerated only in children. Postoperative complications increase according to the patient’s factors, and temporal avoidance of emergent general anesthesia may be beneficial for high-risk patients. The surgeon’s skill and cooperation of the hospital are important for successful LA. Delaying appendectomy for less than 24 h from diagnosis is safe. Additionally, a semi-elective manner (i.e., LA within 24 h after onset of symptoms) may be paradoxically acceptable, according to the factors of the patient, physician, and institution. Prompt LA is mandatory for AA. Fortunately, the Japanese government uses a universal health insurance system, which covers LA.

Outcome of primary closure of abdominal wounds following laparotomy for peritonitis in children

BACKGROUND

Primary wound closure following laparotomy for peritonitis is generally believed to be associated with wound complications and long hospital stay. Open wound management has long been the most common practice after laparotomy for peritonitis. Primary closure (PC), however, has recently been advocated to reduce cost and morbidity. This study determined the incidence and severity of wound complications and their impact on hospital stay and overall outcome when PC of abdominal wounds is done following laparotomy for peritonitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective review of patients who had PC of abdominal wounds following laparotomy for peritonitis over a 6-year period.

RESULTS

Fifty-six children were analysed (35 boys and 21 girls), aged 11 months to 13 years (median: 8 years). The indication for laparotomy was typhoid intestinal perforation 47 (83.9%), perforated appendicitis 4 (7.1%), complicated cholecystitis 3 (5.3%) and penetrating abdominal injury with bowel perforation and intestinal obstruction with bowel perforation, 1 (1.8%) each, respectively. Postoperatively, 34 patients had wound complications. Nine patients (16.1%) had superficial wound infection alone, 12 (21.4%) had superficial wound infection with partial wound dehiscence, 6 (10.7%) had deep wound infection, 7 (12.5%) had deep wound infection with complete wound dehiscence, whereas 22 (39.3%) had no wound complication. Overall, wound complications in 13 (23.2%) patients were considered to be severe, but none resulted in mortality. Hospital stay in patients who developed wound complications was 8-37 days (median: 25 days) and 6-22 days (median: 10 days) in patients who had no wound complications (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The rate of wound complications following PC of dirty abdominal wounds remain but PC is safe and gives good healing outcomes.

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.