Browsing by Subject "SURGICAL SITE INFECTION"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-7 of 7
  • Di Saverio, Salomone; Podda, Mauro; De Simone, Belinda; Ceresoli, Marco; Augustin, Goran; Gori, Alice; Boermeester, Marja; Sartelli, Massimo; Coccolini, Federico; Tarasconi, Antonio; Angelis, Nicola de'; Weber, Dieter G.; Tolonen, Matti; Birindelli, Arianna; Biffl, Walter; Moore, Ernest E.; Kelly, Michael; Soreide, Kjetil; Kashuk, Jeffry; Ten Broek, Richard; Gomes, Carlos Augusto; Sugrue, Michael; Davies, Richard Justin; Damaskos, Dimitrios; Leppäniemi, Ari; Kirkpatrick, Andrew; Peitzman, Andrew B.; Fraga, Gustavo P.; Maier, Ronald V.; Coimbra, Raul; Chiarugi, Massimo; Sganga, Gabriele; Pisanu, Adolfo; Angelis, Gian Luigi de'; Tan, Edward; Van Goor, Harry; Pata, Francesco; Di Carlo, Isidoro; Chiara, Osvaldo; Litvin, Andrey; Campanile, Fabio C.; Sakakushev, Boris; Tomadze, Gia; Demetrashvili, Zaza; Latifi, Rifat; Abu-Zidan, Fakri; Romeo, Oreste; Segovia-Lohse, Helmut; Baiocchi, Gianluca; Costa, David; Rizoli, Sandro; Balogh, Zsolt J.; Bendinelli, Cino; Scalea, Thomas; Ivatury, Rao; Velmahos, George; Andersson, Roland; Kluger, Yoram; Ansaloni, Luca; Catena, Fausto (2020)
    Background and aims Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy. Methods This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (<16 years old) patients. Conclusions The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.
  • Lindholm, Vivian M.; Isoherranen, Kirsi M.; Schröder, Marika T.; Pitkänen, Sari T. (2020)
    Below-knee dermatological surgery has a high risk of complications such as wound infection, bleeding, and necrosis. In this study, we evaluated the impact of preoperative appointments on complication risks. We searched the medical records of the Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUS) Dermatosurgery unit for all below-knee surgeries during 2016, when no preoperative nurse appointments were carried out, and compared it with 2018, when preoperative appointments for risk patients were introduced. The study included 187 patients in 2016 and 179 patients in 2018, of whom 68 (about one third) attended preoperative appointments. At the appointments, risk factors were evaluated, and compression therapy was introduced when possible. The results show complication rates of 13.4% in 2016 vs 10.1% in 2018 (P = .33), despite significantly higher risks in the 2018 patient group. The odds ratio for complications in appointment attendees vs non-attendees was reduced after adjustments to 0.58; however, this was insignificant (P = .47). The odds of complications for skin grafts were considerably higher: 11.33 vs other surgery techniques (P = .00). In conclusion, the introduction of preoperative appointments appeared to reduce complications in below-knee surgery. For graft reconstructions, complication risk is high, even with carefully planned pre- and postoperative care. Further studies are needed to evaluate preventable risk factors of below-knee graft reconstructions.
  • Guillaume, O.; Perez-Tanoira, R.; Fortelny, R.; Redl, H.; Moriarty, T. F.; Richards, R. G.; Eglin, D.; Puchner, A. Petter (2018)
    The incidence of mesh-related infection after abdominal wall hernia repair is low, generally between 1 and 4%; however, worldwide, this corresponds to tens of thousands of difficult cases to treat annually. Adopting best practices in prevention is one of the keys to reduce the incidence of mesh-related infection. Once the infection is established, however, only a limited number of options are available that provides an efficient and successful treatment outcome. Over the past few years, there has been a tremendous amount of research dedicated to the functionalization of prosthetic meshes with antimicrobial properties, with some receiving regulatory approval and are currently available for clinical use. In this context, it is important to review the clinical importance of mesh infection, its risk factors, prophylaxis and pathogenicity. In addition, we give an overview of the main functionalization approaches that have been applied on meshes to confer anti-bacterial protection, the respective benefits and limitations, and finally some relevant future directions. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Sartelli, Massimo; Kluger, Yoram; Ansaloni, Luca; Coccolini, Federico; Baiocchi, Gian Luca; Hardcastle, Timothy C.; Moore, Ernest E.; May, Addison K.; Itani, Kamal M. F.; Fry, Donald E.; Boermeester, Marja A.; Guirao, Xavier; Napolitano, Lena; Sawyer, Robert G.; Rasa, Kemal; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M.; Adesunkanmi, Abdulrashid K.; Atanasov, Boyko; Augustin, Goran; Bala, Miklosh; Cainzos, Miguel A.; Chichom-Mefire, Alain; Cortese, Francesco; Damaskos, Dimitris; Delibegovic, Samir; Demetrashvili, Zaza; De Simone, Belinda; Duane, Therese M.; Ghnnam, Wagih; Gkiokas, George; Gomes, Carlos A.; Hecker, Andreas; Karamarkovic, Aleksandar; Kenig, Jakub; Khokha, Vladimir; Kong, Victor; Isik, Arda; Leppäniemi, Ari; Litvin, Andrey; Lostoridis, Eftychios; Machain, Gustavo M.; Marwah, Sanjay; McFarlane, Michael; Mesina, Cristian; Negoi, Ionut; Olaoye, Iyiade; Pintar, Tadeja; Pupelis, Guntars; Rems, Miran; Rubio-Perez, Ines; Sakakushev, Boris; Segovia-Lohse, Helmut; Siribumrungwong, Boonying; Talving, Peep; Ulrych, Jan; Vereczkei, Andras G.; Labricciosa, Francesco M.; Catena, Fausto (2018)
    Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of best practices of infection prevention and management, many surgeons worldwide fail to implement them. Evidence-based practices tend to be underused in routine practice. Surgeons with knowledge in surgical infections should provide feedback to prescribers and integrate best practices among surgeons and implement changes within their team. Identifying a local opinion leader to serve as a champion within the surgical department may be important. The "surgeon champion" can integrate best clinical practices of infection prevention and management, drive behavior change in their colleagues, and interact with both infection control teams in promoting antimicrobial stewardship.
  • Koskenvuo, Laura; Lehtonen, Taru; Koskensalo, Selja; Rasilainen, Suvi; Klintrup, Kai; Ehrlich, Anu; Pinta, Tarja; Scheinin, Tom; Sallinen, Ville (2019)
    Background Decreased surgical site infections (SSIs) and morbidity have been reported with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) compared with no bowel preparation (NBP) in colonic surgery. Several societies have recommended routine use of MOABP in patients undergoing colon resection on the basis of these data. Our aim was to investigate this recommendation in a prospective randomised context. Methods In this multicentre, parallel, single-blinded trial, patients undergoing colon resection were randomly assigned (1: 1) to either MOABP or NBP in four hospitals in Finland, using a web-based randomisation technique. Randomly varying block sizes (four, six, and eight) were used for randomisation, and stratification was done according to centre. The recruiters, treating physicians, operating surgeons, data collectors, and analysts were masked to the allocated treatment. Key exclusion criteria were need for emergency surgery; bowel obstruction; colonoscopy planned during surgery; allergy to polyethylene glycol, neomycin, or metronidazole; and age younger than 18 years or older than 95 years. Study nurses opened numbered opaque envelopes containing the patient allocated group, and instructed the patients according to the allocation group to either prepare the bowel, or not prepare the bowel. Patients allocated to MOABP prepared their bowel by drinking 2 L of polyethylene glycol and 1 L of clear fluid before 6 pm on the day before surgery and took 2 g of neomycin orally at 7 pm and 2 g of metronidazole orally at 11 pm the day before surgery. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective colon resection with an anastomosis) along with safety analyses. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, NCT02652637, and EudraCT, 2015-004559-38, and is closed to new participants. Findings Between March 17, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 738 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of the 417 patients who were randomised (209 to MOABP and 208 to NBP), 13 in the MOABP group and eight in the NBP were excluded before undergoing colonic resection; therefore, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 396 patients (196 for MOABP and 200 for NBP). SSI was detected in 13 (7%) of 196 patients randomised to MOABP, and in 21 (11%) of 200 patients randomised to NBP (odds ratio 1 . 65, 95% CI 0 . 80-3 . 40; p= 0 . 17). Anastomotic dehiscence was reported in 7 (4%) of 196 patients in the MOABP group and in 8 (4%) of 200 in the NBP group, and reoperations were necessary in 16 (8%) of 196 compared with 13 (7%) of 200 patients. Two patients died in the NBP group and none in the MOABP group within 30 days. Interpretation MOABP does not reduce SSIs or the overall morbidity of colon surgery compared with NBP. We therefore propose that the current recommendations of using MOABP for colectomies to reduce SSIs or morbidity should be reconsidered. Copyright (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Vander Poorten, Vincent; Uyttebroek, Saartje; Robbins, K. Thomas; Rodrigo, Juan P.; de Bree, Remco; Laenen, Annouschka; Saba, Nabil F.; Suarez, Carlos; Mäkitie, Antti; Rinaldo, Alessandra; Ferlito, Alfio (2020)
    BackgroundThe optimal evidence-based prophylactic antibiotic regimen for surgical site infections following major head and neck surgery remains a matter of debate.MethodsMedline, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for the current best evidence. Retrieved manuscripts were screened according to the PRISMA guidelines. Included studies dealt with patients over 18 years of age that underwent clean-contaminated head and neck surgery (P) and compared the effect of an intervention, perioperative administration of different antibiotic regimens for a variable duration (I), with control groups receiving placebo, another antibiotic regimen, or the same antibiotic for a different postoperative duration (C), on surgical site infection rate as primary outcome (O) (PICO model). A systematic review was performed, and a selected group of trials investigating a similar research question was subjected to a random-effects model meta-analysis.ResultsThirty-nine studies were included in the systematic review. Compared with placebo, cefazolin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and amoxicillin-clavulanate were the most efficient agents. Benzylpenicillin and clindamycin were clearly less effective. Fifteen studies compared short- to long-term prophylaxis; treatment for more than 48 h did not further reduce wound infections. Meta-analysis of five clinical trials including 4336 patients, where clindamycin was compared with ampicillin-sulbactam, implied an increased infection rate for clindamycin-treated patients (OR=2.73, 95% CI 1.50-4.97, p=0.001).ConclusionIn clean-contaminated head and neck surgery, cefazolin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and ampicillin-sulbactam for 24-48 h after surgery were associated with the highest prevention rate of surgical site infection.
  • Reponen, Elina; Tuominen, Hanna; Korja, Miikka (2019)
    BACKGROUND: Multiple nationwide outcome registries are utilized for quality benchmarking between institutions and individual surgeons. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether nationwide quality of care programs in the United Kingdom and United States can measure differences in neurosurgical quality. METHODS: This prospective observational study comprised 418 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy at Helsinki University Hospital between December 7, 2011 and December 31, 2012.We recorded outcome event rates and categorized them according to British Neurosurgical National Audit Programme (NNAP), American National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and American National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD) to assess the applicability of these programs for quality benchmarking and estimated sample sizes required for reliable quality comparisons. RESULTS: The rate of in-hospital major and minor morbidity was 18.7% and 38.0%, respectively, and 30-d mortality rate was 2.4%. The NSQIP criteria identified 96.2% of major but only 38.4% of minor complications. N(2)QOD performed better, but almost one-fourth (23.2%) of all patients with adverse outcomes, mostly minor, went unnoticed. For NNAP, a sample size of over 4200 patients per surgeon is required to detect a 50.0% increase in mortality rates between surgeons. The sample size required for reliable comparisons between the rates of complications exceeds 600 patients per center per year. CONCLUSION: The implemented benchmarking programs in the United Kingdom and United States fail to identify a considerable number of complications in a high-volume center. Health care policy makers should be cautious as outcome comparisons between most centers and individual surgeons are questionable if based on the programs.