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

Alternative Antimicrobial Irrigation Strategies for the Treatment of Infections in Children: A Review of the Existing Literature

As a synergistic treatment approach with systemic antimicrobial therapy or a systemic antibiotic-sparing strategy, the local administration of antimicrobial agents has been proposed as an alternative route for complicated infections. With the rationale of concentrating the active principle in the desired target site, avoiding potentially toxic systemic levels and bypassing anatomical and physiological barriers, local irrigation or infusion of antibiotics may effectively shorten the antimicrobial therapy course and reduce both infection-related and systemic therapy-related complications. Although evidence from the adult population supports its use in selected patients with an acceptable safety profile, data specifically focused on the pediatric population are limited. To provide a rapid and easily accessible tool for clinical practice, we synthesized the most relevant evidence on the use of local antimicrobial agents in common severe infections in children: meningitis, mediastinitis, pleural infections, recurrent urinary infections, and peritonitis. A literature search was performed using predefined combined keywords through an electronic research database (PubMed). Described molecules, dosages, routes, treated age groups, and related efficacy have been summarized for prompt application to clinical practice. It should, however, be noted that the evidence for the pediatric population remains limited, and the local administration of several molecules remains off-label. A careful multidisciplinary and patient-tailored evaluation, as well as a rational use of available guidelines, should always be the basis of clinical decision making in settings where local administration of antibiotics may be considered.

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

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

Adjuvant intraperitoneal ceftriaxone in the treatment of septic peritonitis in horses

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal administration of ceftriaxone maintains therapeutic abdominal concentrations for 24 hours in healthy horses. Therefore, it is a possible treatment for septic peritonitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ceftriaxone as an adjuvant treatment in horses with septic peritonitis.

METHODS

Twenty-six horses with clinical signs, sonography and/or laboratory findings of septic peritonitis were included. Peritoneal fluid was collected for microbiological culture and in vitro microbial sensitivity profile assessment. Daily intraperitoneal administration of ceftriaxone (25 mg/kg) was initiated with supportive and systemic antimicrobial treatment. The animals were divided into three groups: group 1-gastrointestinal tract injuries and abdominal surgery (excluding perforations/ruptures); group 2-not related to changes in the gastrointestinal tract; group 3-secondary to intestinal rupture and/or faeces contamination.

RESULTS

The mean success rate of the treatment was 77 per cent (20/26 animals), with success rates of 84.6 per cent in group 1; 87.5 per cent, group 2; and 40 per cent, group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to report adjuvant intraperitoneal treatment ceftriaxone for septic peritonitis in horses and indicates that this treatment can successfully treat septic peritonitis in horses.

Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after an operative procedure. A preventable complication, they are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes, increased mortality, morbidity and reoperation rates. Surgical wound irrigation is an intraoperative technique, which may reduce the rate of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and wound exudate. Irrigation can be undertaken prior to wound closure or postoperatively. Intracavity lavage is a similar technique used in operations that expose a bodily cavity; such as procedures on the abdominal cavity and during joint replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound irrigation and intracavity lavage on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing surgical procedures in which the use of a particular type of intraoperative washout (irrigation or lavage) was the only systematic difference between groups, and in which wounds underwent primary closure. The primary outcomes were SSI and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were mortality, use of systemic antibiotics, antibiotic resistance, adverse events, re-intervention, length of hospital stay, and readmissions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage. Two review authors also undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We calculated risk ratios or differences in means with 95% confidence intervals where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs with 14,738 participants. Studies assessed comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation, between antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation, between different antibiotics, different antiseptics or different non-antibacterial agents, or between different methods of irrigation delivery. No studies compared antiseptic with antibiotic irrigation. Surgical site infectionIrrigation compared with no irrigation (20 studies; 7192 participants): there is no clear difference in risk of SSI between irrigation and no irrigation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.11; I2 = 28%; 14 studies, 6106 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 13 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with irrigation compared with no irrigation; the 95% CI spanned from 31 fewer to 10 more SSIs. This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.Antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (36 studies, 6163 participants): there may be a lower incidence of SSI in participants treated with antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75; I2 = 53%; 30 studies, 5141 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 60 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with antibacterial irrigation than with non-antibacterial (95% CI 35 fewer to 78 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and suspected publication bias.Comparison of irrigation of two agents of the same class (10 studies; 2118 participants): there may be a higher incidence of SSI in participants treated with povidone iodine compared with superoxidised water (Dermacyn) (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.47; low-certainty evidence from one study, 190 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 95 more SSIs per 1000 people treated with povidone iodine than with superoxidised water (95% CI 3 more to 341 more). All other comparisons found low- or very low-certainty evidence of no clear difference between groups.Comparison of two irrigation techniques: two studies compared standard (non-pulsed) methods with pulsatile methods. There may, on average, be fewer SSIs in participants treated with pulsatile methods compared with standard methods (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62; I2 = 0%; two studies, 484 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 109 fewer SSIs occurring per 1000 with pulsatile irrigation compared with standard (95% CI 62 fewer to 134 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded twice for risks of bias across multiple domains. Wound dehiscenceFew studies reported wound dehiscence. No comparison had evidence for a difference between intervention groups. This included comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence); antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation (three studies, very low-certainty evidence) and pulsatile and standard irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomesFew studies reported outcomes such as use of systemic antibiotics and antibiotic resistance and they were poorly and incompletely reported. There was limited reporting of mortality; this may have been partially due to failure to specify zero events in participants at low risk of death. Adverse event reporting was variable and often limited to individual event types. The evidence for the impact of interventions on length of hospital stay was low or moderate certainty; where differences were seen they were too small to be clinically important.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for intracavity lavage and wound irrigation is generally of low certainty. Therefore where we identified a possible difference in the incidence of SSI (in comparisons of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions, and pulsatile versus standard methods) these should be considered in the context of uncertainty, particularly given the possibility of publication bias for the comparison of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions. Clinicians should also consider whether the evidence is relevant to the surgical populations under consideration, the varying reporting of other prophylactic antibiotics, and concerns about antibiotic resistance.We did not identify any trials that compared an antibiotic with an antiseptic. This gap in the direct evidence base may merit further investigation, potentially using network meta-analysis; to inform the direction of new primary research. Any new trial should be adequately powered to detect a difference in SSIs in eligible participants, should use robust research methodology to reduce the risks of bias and internationally recognised criteria for diagnosis of SSI, and should have adequate duration and follow-up.

Current Status of Exposed Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection and Further Development of Non-Exposed Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a procedure that makes it possible to access the lesions that are on the wall of the digestive tract via the shortest distance through the mouth. Because of the ultra-minimal invasive nature of the treatment, pure EFTR is a highly promising surgical procedure that allows the radical excision of full-thickness layers of digestive tract tumors using only a flexible endoscope. There are 2 types of EFTR methods: exposed and non-exposed. Considering the risks of contracting infection and intraperitoneal dissemination of tumor cells, non-exposed EFTR is an ideal method. However, a number of issues remain unresolved, including the method for performing a full-thickness suture under endoscopic view and the challenge of securing the operating field in the case of gastrointestinal tract collapse. Moreover, advances in the development of equipment such as full-thickness suturing devices would be helpful to make this therapeutic procedure the most minimally invasive endoscopic surgery ever.

Review of Pure Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) using flexible endoscopy has attracted attention as a minimally invasive surgical method that does not cause an operative wound on the body surface. However, minimizing the number of devices involved in endoscopic, compared to laparoscopic, surgeries has remained a challenge, causing endoscopic surgeries to gradually be phased out of use. If a flexible endoscopic full-thickness suturing device and a counter-traction device were developed to expand the surgical field for gastrointestinal-tract collapse, then endoscopic full-thickness resection using NOTES, which is seen as an extension of endoscopic submucosal dissection for full-thickness excision of tumors involving the gastrointestinal-tract wall, might become an extremely minimally invasive surgical method that could be used to resect only full-thickness lesions approached by the shortest distance via the mouth. It is expected that gastroenterological endoscopists will use this surgery if device development is advanced. This extremely minimally invasive surgery would have an immeasurable impact with regard to mitigating the burden on patients and reducing healthcare costs. Development of a new surgical method using a multipurpose flexible endoscope is therefore considered a socially urgent issue.

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

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

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

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

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