Dataset Information

Intraoperative incision irrigation with high-volume saline reduces surgical site infection for abdominal infections

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains one of the most common postoperative complications for patients with abdominal infections. This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of high-volume normal saline (NS) irrigation in preventing postoperative SSI for patients with abdominal infections.

Methods

In this retrospective before-after clinical study, patients who underwent emergency laparotomy due to abdominal infections between Jan 2015 and Dec 2021 were included consecutively. A cohort of 207 patients with NS irrigation was compared to historical controls. A propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was performed to reduce potential bias. The primary outcome was the 30-day SSI rate.

Results

Irrigation (n = 207) and control (n = 207) matched patients were statistically identical on baseline characteristics, perioperative, and intraoperative parameters. Irrigation patients had lower overall SSI rates (10.6% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), mainly due to reduction in superficial (4.3% vs. 17.9%) and deep (1.4% vs. 3.9%) SSIs, rather than space/organ SSIs (4.8% vs. 4.3%). Irrigation patients also had lower rates of incision seroma (4.8% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.012), shorter duration of antibiotics use (5.2 ± 1.7 d vs. 7.2 ± 2.0 d, p < 0.001), and unplanned readmission (1.0% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001). Length of hospital stay showed a declining trend with irrigation intervention, while no significant difference was observed. Moreoever, logistic regression revealed that NS irrigationwas an independent protector against SSI (OR 0.309; 95% CI, 0.207–0.462; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Intraoperative incision irrigation with high-volume NS is associated with a lower rate of SSI for patients with abdominal infections.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9314743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common hospital infections and contributes substantially to postoperative morbidity and mortality. In addition, SSIs dramatically increase the treatment cost and length of hospital stay. Following visceral surgery by laparotomy, SSI rates are especially high (14-25%). Therefore, measures to prevent SSI in this field are urgently needed. Prophylactic intraoperative wound irrigation (IOWI) of the subcutaneous soft tissue before skin closure hypothetically represents an easy and economical option to reduce SSI rates and is already frequently used in clinical practice. However, there are currently no definite recommendations on the use of IOWI since high-level evidence supporting its use is lacking. Consequently, clinical practice varies widely. Antiseptic polyhexanide (PHX)-based solutions are approved for soft-tissue wound irrigation in surgery but have not been specifically evaluated in randomized clinical trials for the prevention of SSI following laparotomy for visceral surgery.Methods/designThe IOWISI trial is a multicentre, randomized, observer- and patient-blinded clinical trial with three parallel treatment groups, comparing IOWI with a 0.04% PHX solution to no irrigation (test 1) or saline (test 2) before skin closure after laparotomy for visceral surgery (contamination level II-IV). The primary endpoint of the trial is the SSI rate within 30 days postoperatively. Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint measure will be based on the intention-to-treat population. The global level of significance is set at 2.5% for test 1 and 5% for test 2 and the sample size (n = 540) is determined to assure a power of 94% (test 1) and 85% (test 2).DiscussionThe IOWISI trial will provide high-level evidence as a basis for clinical recommendations regarding the use of IOWI with PHX or saline and will potentially impact on future clinical guidelines and practice. The pragmatic trial design guarantees high external validity.Trial registrationRegistered at the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012251 . Registered on 3 July 2017.

Project description:BackgroundIntraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.MethodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.ResultsTen RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I2 = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I2 = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.ConclusionIOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections (SSIs) are highly prevalent in abdominal surgery despite evidence-based prevention measures. Since guidelines are not self-implementing and SSI-preventive compliance is often insufficient, implementation interventions have been developed to promote compliance. This systematic review aims to identify implementation interventions used in abdominal surgery to prevent SSIs and determine associations with SSI reductions. METHODS:Literature was searched in April 2018 (Medline/PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection). Implementation interventions were classified using the implementation subcategories of the EPOC Taxonomy (Cochrane Review Group Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, EPOC). Additionally, an effectiveness analysis was conducted on the association between the number of implementation interventions, specific compositions thereof, and absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. RESULTS:Forty studies were included. Implementation interventions used most frequently ("top five") were audit and feedback (80% of studies), organizational culture (70%), monitoring the performance of healthcare delivery (65%), reminders (53%), and educational meetings (45%). Twenty-nine studies (72.5%) used a multimodal strategy (?3 interventions). An effectiveness analysis revealed significant absolute and relative SSI risk reductions. E.g., numerically, the largest absolute risk reduction of 10.8% pertained to thirteen studies using 3-5 interventions (p?<?.001); however, this was from a higher baseline rate than those with fewer or more interventions. The largest relative risk reduction was 52.4% for studies employing the top five interventions, compared to 43.1% for those not including these. Furthermore, neither the differences in risk reduction between studies with different numbers of implementation interventions (bundle size) nor between studies including the top five interventions (vs. not) were significant. CONCLUSION:In SSI prevention in abdominal surgery, mostly standard bundles of implementation interventions are applied. While an effectiveness analysis of differences in SSI risk reduction by number and type of interventions did not render conclusive results, use of standard interventions such as audit and feedback, organizational culture, monitoring, reminders, and education at least does not seem to represent preventive malpractice. Further research should determine implementation interventions, or bundles thereof, which are most effective in promoting compliance with SSI-preventive measures in abdominal surgery.