Functional separation of septic and aseptic surgical procedures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kramer A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3252653 | biostudies-other | 2011
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Functional separation of septic and aseptic surgical procedures.
Kramer Axel A Assadian Ojan O Wendt Michael M Stengel Dirk D Seifert Julia J
GMS Krankenhaushygiene interdisziplinar 20111215 1
Current evidence does not favour constructional over functional separation of septic and aseptic surgical procedures in terms of overall hygiene maintenance and incidence of skin and soft tissue infections. In both laminar and turbulent flow air operating theatres, air is not a relevant source of pathogens if surface disinfection is carried out properly.Final cleaning after a septic procedure includes a thorough wipe-disinfection of all potentially contaminated near and distant surfaces, includi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Highly effective measures to prevent surgical wound infections have been established over the last two decades. We studied whether the strict separation of septic and aseptic procedure rooms is still necessary.In an exploratory, prospective observational study, the microbial concentration in an operating room without a room ventilating system (RVS) was analyzed during 16 septic and 14 aseptic operations with the aid of an air sampler (50 cm and 1 m from the operative field) and sedimentation plates (1 m from the operative field, and contact culture on the walls). The means and standard deviations of the microbial loads were compared with the aid of GEE models (generalized estimation equations).In the comparison of septic and aseptic operations, no relevant differences were found with respect to the overall microbial concentration in the room air (401.7 ± 176.3 versus 388.2 ± 178.3 CFU/m3; p = 0.692 [CFU, colony-forming units]) or sedimentation 1 m from the operative field (45.3 ± 22.0 versus 48.7 ± 18.5 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.603) and on the walls (35.7 ± 43.7 versus 29.0 ± 49.4 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.685). The only relevant differences between the microbial spectra associated with the two types of procedure were a small amount of sedimentation of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis in septic operations, and of staphylococcus aureus and pseudomonas stutzeri in aseptic operations, up to 30 minutes after the end of the procedure.These data do not suggest that septic and aseptic procedure rooms need to be separated. In interpreting the findings, one should recall that the study was not planned as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Wherever patient safety is concerned, high-level safety concepts should only be demoted to lower levels if new and convincing evidence becomes available.
| S-EPMC5545629 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted. METHODS:Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature. RESULTS:A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality. CONCLUSIONS:This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.
| S-EPMC6325836 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing incidence of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to an increase in both the incidence and the cost burden of revision TKA procedures. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost of revision TKA for septic and aseptic causes and to identify the major cost components contributing to the cost burden.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias and cost transparency within the studies were conducted by two independent reviewers, after which the cost data were analysed narratively for 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision; 2-stage septic revision with re-revision; and aseptic revision with and without re-revision, respectively. The major cost components identified in the respective studies were also reported.ResultsThe direct medical cost from the healthcare provider perspective for high-income countries for 2-stage septic revision with re-revision ranged from US$66,629 to US$81,938, which can be about 2.5 times the cost of 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision, (range: US$24,027 - US$38,109), which can be about double the cost of aseptic revision without re-revision (range: US$13,910 - US$29,213). The major cost components were the perioperative cost (33%), prosthesis cost (28%), and hospital ward stay cost (22%).ConclusionsSeptic TKA revision with re-revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) increases the cost burden of revision TKA by 4 times when compared to aseptic single-stage revision and by 2.5 times when compared to septic TKA revision that does not undergo re-revision. Cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the number of primary TKA that develop PJI, avoidance of re-revisions for PJI, and reduction in the length of stay after revision.Trial registrationPROSPERO; CRD42020171988 .
| S-EPMC8371784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of patients with aortic dissection is challenging and its treatment is an area of development and innovation. Conventional surgical techniques are associated with significant risks in terms of mortality and morbidity in such high-risk patients. As a result of cumulative advances in technology, classical surgical techniques have been improved and enhanced by the newer endovascular approaches, leading to novel surgical hybrid procedures. Impressive early results have been seen with frozen elephant techniques, revascularisation of the supra-aortic branches and branched/fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair-alone procedures. This review describes the techniques involved in the latest hybrid procedures for aortic dissection and their outcomes.
| S-EPMC5808688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBlack patients are at higher risk of revision total knee replacement (TKR) than White patients, but whether racial disparities exist for both septic and aseptic revision TKR and the reason for any disparities are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the risk of septic and aseptic revision TKR in Black and White patients and to examine interactions among race and socioeconomic and hospital-related variables that are associated with revision TKR risk.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included residents of New York, California, and Florida who underwent TKR. Patient-level data were obtained from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Database, and Florida's Healthcare Utilization Project State Inpatient Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Community characteristics were calculated from the US Census and linked to discharges by patient zip code. American Hospital Association Annual Survey data were linked to discharges using hospital identifiers. The analyses were performed from March 1 to October 30, 2020, with subsequent analyses in April 2021.Main outcomes and measuresCox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to measure the association of race with septic and aseptic revision TKR.ResultsA total of 722 492 patients underwent primary TKR, of whom 445 616 (61.68%) were female and 61 092 (8.46%) were Black. Black patients were at higher risk of septic (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20) and aseptic (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.33-1.46) revision TKR compared with White patients. Other risk factors for septic revision TKR were diabetes (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), obesity (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), kidney disease (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.57), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.30), inflammatory arthritis (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), surgical site complications during the index TKR (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.87-2.56), Medicaid insurance (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31), and low annual TKR volume at the hospital where the index TKR was performed (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.41-1.68). Risk factors for aseptic revision TKR were male sex (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), workers' compensation insurance (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.51-1.72), and low hospital TKR volume (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.22). Patients with obesity had a lower risk of aseptic TKR revision (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.84). In an analysis within each category of hospital TKR volume, the HR for aseptic revision among Black vs White patients was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.37) at very-low-volume hospitals (≤89 TKRs annually) compared with 1.68 (95% CI, 1.48-1.90) at very-high-volume hospitals (≥645 TKRs annually).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Black patients were at significantly higher risk of aseptic revision TKR and, to a lesser extent, septic revision TKR compared with White patients. Racial disparities in aseptic revision risk were greatest at hospitals with very high TKR volumes.
| S-EPMC8295735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:During the implementation of new interventions (i.e., surgical devices and technologies) in the operating room, surgical safety might be compromised. Current safety measures are insufficient in detecting safety hazards during this process. The aim of the study was to observe whether surgical teams are capable of measuring surgical safety, especially with regard to the introduction of new interventions. METHODS:A Surgical Safety Questionnaire was developed that had to be filled out directly postoperative by three surgical team members. A potential safety concern was defined as at least one answer between (strongly) disagree and indifferent. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by comparison with the results from video analysis. Two different observers annotated the presence and effect of surgical flow disturbances during 40 laparoscopic hysterectomies performed between November 2010 and April 2012. RESULTS:The surgeon reported a potential safety concern in 16% (85/520 questions). With respect to the scrub nurse and anesthesiologist, this was both 9% (46/520). With respect to the preparation, functioning, and ease of use of the devices in 37.5-47.5% (15-19/40 procedures) a potential safety concern was reported by one or more team members. During procedures after which a potential safety concern was reported, surgical flow disturbances lasted a higher percentage of the procedure duration [9.3?±?6.2 vs. 2.9?±?3.7% (mean?±?SD), p?<?.001]. After procedures during which a new instrument or device was used, more potential safety concerns were reported (51.2 vs. 23.1%, p?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS:Potential safety concerns were especially reported during procedures in which a relatively high percentage of the duration consisted of surgical flow disturbances and during procedures in which a new instrument or device was used. The Surgical Safety Questionnaire can act as a validated tool to evaluate and maintain surgical safety during minimally invasive procedures, especially during the introduction of a new intervention.
| S-EPMC5988766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDespite a growing volume of surgical procedures in low-income and middle-income countries, the costs of these procedures are not well understood. We estimated the costs of 12 surgical procedures commonly conducted in five different types of hospitals in India from the provider perspective, using a microcosting method.DesignCost and utilisation data were collected retrospectively from April 2010 to March 2011 to avoid seasonal variability.SettingFor this study, we chose five hospitals of different types: a 57-bed charitable hospital, a 200-bed private hospital, a 400-bed district hospital, a 655-bed private teaching hospital and a 778-bed tertiary care teaching hospital based on their willingness to cooperate and data accessibility. The hospitals were from four states in India. The private, charitable and tertiary care hospitals serve urban populations, the district hospital serves a semiurban area and the private teaching hospital serves a rural population.ResultsCosts of conducting lower section caesarean section ranged from rupees 2469 to 41 087; hysterectomy rupees 4124 to 57 622 and appendectomy rupees 2421 to 3616 (US$1=rupees 52). We computed the costs of conducting lap and open cholecystectomy (rupees 27 732 and 44 142, respectively); hernia repair (rupees 13 204); external fixation (rupees 8406); intestinal obstruction (rupees 6406); amputation (rupees 5158); coronary artery bypass graft (rupees 177 141); craniotomy (rupees 75 982) and functional endoscopic sinus surgery (rupees 53 398).ConclusionsEstimated costs are roughly comparable with rates of reimbursement provided by the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)-India's government-financed health insurance scheme that covers 32.4 million poor families. Results from this type of study can be used to set and revise the reimbursement rates.
| S-EPMC3686227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated the proportion of orthopaedic procedures supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing operative procedures to a non-operative alternative. Orthopaedic procedures conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 across three metropolitan teaching hospitals were identified, grouped and ranked according to frequency. Searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were performed to identify RCTs evaluating the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Included studies were categorised as "supportive" or "not supportive" of operative treatment. A risk of bias analysis was conducted for included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. A total of 9,392 orthopaedic procedures were performed across the index period. 94.6% (8886 procedures) of the total volume, representing the 32 most common operative procedure categories, were used for this analysis. Of the 83 included RCTs, 22.9% (19/83) were classified as supportive of operative intervention. 36.9% (3279/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. 19.6% (1743/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one low risk of bias RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. The level of RCT support for common orthopaedic procedures compares unfavourably with other fields of medicine.
| S-EPMC4057075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA range of surgical and non-surgical techniques have received increasing attention in recent years in an effort to reduce the duration of a course of orthodontic treatment. Various surgical techniques have been used; however, uncertainty exists in relation to the effectiveness of these procedures and the possible adverse effects related to them.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of surgically assisted orthodontics on the duration and outcome of orthodontic treatment.Search methodsWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 September 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 September 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to 10 September 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 10 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 10 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 10 September 2014). We checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating tooth movement compared with conventional treatment (no surgical adjunctive procedure).Data collection and analysisAt least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. We used the fixed-effect model and expressed results as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We investigated heterogeneity with reference to both clinical and methodological factors.Main resultsWe included four RCTs involving a total of 57 participants ranging in age from 11 to 33 years. The interventions evaluated were corticotomies to facilitate orthodontic space closure or alignment of an ectopic maxillary canine, with the effect of repeated surgical procedures assessed in one of these studies. The studies did not report directly on the primary outcome as prespecified in our protocol: duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits. The main outcome assessed within the trials was the rate of tooth movement, with periodontal effects assessed in one trial and pain assessed in one trial. A maximum of just three trials with small sample sizes were available for each comparison and outcome. We assessed all of the studies as being at unclear risk of bias.Tooth movement was found to be slightly quicker with surgically assisted orthodontics in comparison with conventional treatment over periods of one month (MD 0.61 mm; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; P value < 0.001) and three months (MD 2.03 mm, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.54; P value < 0.001). Our results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies. Information on adverse events was sought; however, no data were reported in the included studies.Authors' conclusionsThis review found that there is limited research concerning the effectiveness of surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment, with no studies directly assessing our prespecified primary outcome. The available evidence is of low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes in the short-term, these procedures do appear to show promise as a means of accelerating tooth movement. It is therefore possible that these procedures may prove useful; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of the entirety of treatment with longer follow-up is required to confirm any possible benefit.
| S-EPMC6464946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To systematically review the current literature on mortality and functional outcomes after emergency major abdominal surgery in older adults.Systematic literature search and standardized data collection of primary research publications from January 1994 through December 2013 on mortality or functional outcome in adults aged 65 and older after emergency major abdominal surgery using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Bibliographies of relevant reports were also hand-searched to identify all potentially eligible studies.Systematic review of retrospective and cohort studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews guidelines.Older adults.Articles were assessed using a standardized quality scoring system based on study design, measurement of exposures, measurement of outcomes, and control for confounding.Of 1,459 articles screened, 93 underwent full-text review, and 20 were systematically reviewed. In-hospital and 30-day mortality of all older adults exceeded 15% in 14 of 16 studies, where reported. Older adults undergoing emergency major abdominal surgery consistently had higher mortality across study settings and procedure types than younger individuals undergoing emergency procedures and older adults undergoing elective procedures. In studies that stratified older adults, odds of death increased with age. None of these studies examined postoperative functional status, which precluded including functional outcomes in this review. Differences in exposures, outcomes, and data presented in the studies did not allow for quantification of association using metaanalysis.Age independently predicts mortality after emergency major abdominal surgery. Data on changes in functional status of older adults who undergo these procedures are lacking.
| S-EPMC4827160 | biostudies-literature