Use of an intraoperative wound protector to prevent surgical-site infection after pancreatoduodenectomy: randomized clinical trial

Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of wound protectors (WPs) in surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Despite practitioners having pursued the ultimate aim of "getting to zero" for centuries, SSI is still a global healthcare burden. WPs are thought to be able to prevent the incision from bacterial contamination, however, contradictory results have been reported.

METHOD

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the SSI rate in patients with and without WPs after abdominal surgery. It includes subgroup analysis of the SSI rate in different surgical sites and different degrees of wound contamination. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science from their respective inceptions until July 6, 2024. All randomized controlled trials with consistent definitions of SSI were included. The bias of each included RCT was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. To evaluate the risks of random errors resulting from repeated significant testing, a trial sequential analysis was performed. The quality of evidence was assessed by using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 4779 participants were involved in the 19 RCTs. The results showed that the application of WPs during abdominal surgery could significantly reduce the SSI rate (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.80, P = 0.0001, very low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis showed that the implementation of WPs significantly reduced the SSI rate after colorectal and gastrointestinal surgery (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.91, P = 0.02, very low certainty evidence; RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, P < 0.00001, moderate certainty evidence, respectively), while had no clear protect role in other types of abdominal surgery. The WPs significantly reduced the SSI rate in patients with a clean-contaminated wound (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, P = 0.008, very low certainty evidence) and contaminated or dirty wound (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.92, P = 0.02, moderate certainty evidence), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that the WPs should not be used indiscriminately in all abdominal but gastrointestinal surgery. For patients with contaminated or dirty incisions, WPs should be considered. More studies are needed to determine the effect of WPs in laparoscopic surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

Reusable surgical headwear has a reduced carbon footprint and matches disposables regarding surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical headwear is designed to maintain sterility and prevent microbial contamination. However, the environmental impact of the healthcare industry carries an obligation to develop sustainable alternatives. We aim to explore the environmental impact and safety of reusable surgical headwear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Studies were reviewed for suitability and risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool, with the results aggregated using Review Manager Version 5.4 for odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the I2 was used to assess heterogeneity. This systematic review included nine studies, and the meta-analysis included six studies involving 45,708 procedural cases. There was no significant difference in surgical site infection (SSI) rates between the reusable and disposable groups (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.59-1.07; P=0.13). Policy implementation did not affect SSI rates (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.85-1.73; P=0.30). Reusable surgical head covers demonstrated a significantly lower carbon footprint (P<0.001), ozone depletion (P<0.005), fossil fuel depletion (P<0.005), terrestrial acidification (P<0.005), and fine particulate matter formation (P<0.005) than disposable alternatives. Reusable surgical headwear matches disposable options for SSI incidence and offers environmental advantages. These findings support a shift towards reusable alternatives in healthcare, aligning patient safety with ecological responsibility. By adopting reusable alternatives, healthcare systems can actively contribute to planetary health, thereby highlighting the significant role of sustainable practices in modern medical settings.

Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported conflicting results of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the effect of prolonged antibiotics on surgical-site infections (SSIs) after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken of SSIs in patients with perioperative (within 24 h) versus prolonged antibiotic (over 24 h) prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy. SSIs were classified as organ/space infections or superficial SSI within 30 days after surgery. ORs were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 8 reporting on 1170 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The duration of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis varied between 2 and 10 days after surgery. Four studies reporting on 782 patients showed comparable organ/space infection rates in patients receiving perioperative and prolonged antibiotics (OR 1.35, 95 per cent c.i. 0.94 to 1.93). However, among patients with preoperative biliary drainage (5 studies reporting on 577 patients), organ/space infection rates were lower with prolonged compared with perioperative antibiotics (OR 2.09, 1.43 to 3.07). Three studies (633 patients) demonstrated comparable superficial SSI rates between patients receiving perioperative versus prolonged prophylaxis (OR 1.54, 0.97 to 2.44), as well as in patients with preoperative biliary drainage in 4 studies reporting on 431 patients (OR 1.60, 0.89 to 2.88).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with fewer organ/space infection in patients who undergo preoperative biliary drainage. However, the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy remains to be determined and warrants confirmation in an RCT.

The hepatic and pancreatic tumour resection risk factors for surgical site wound infections: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to measure hepatic and pancreatic tumour resection (HPTR) risk factors (RFs) for surgical site wound infections (SSWIs). A comprehensive literature inspection was conducted until February 2023, and 2349 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The nine chosen investigations included 22 774 individuals who were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 20 831 of them were with pancreatic tumours (PTs), and 1934 with hepatic tumours (HTs). Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the HPTR RFs for SSWIs using dichotomous and continuous approaches, and a fixed or random model. HT patients with biliary reconstruction had significantly higher SSWI (OR, 5.81; 95% CI, 3.42-9.88, P < .001) than those without biliary reconstruction. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between individuals with PT who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and those who underwent distal pancreatectomy in SSWI (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.95-2.77, P = .07). HT individuals with biliary reconstruction had significantly higher SSWI compared with those without biliary reconstruction. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between PT individuals who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and those who underwent distal pancreatectomy in SSWI. However, owing to the small number of selected investigations for this meta-analysis, care must be exercised when dealing with its values.

Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic literature search up to June 2022 was performed and 6026 subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery at the baseline of the studies; 3090 of them were using the wound protector, and 2936 were using no wound protector. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83, P = .004), and dual-ring wound protectors (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.56, P < .001) in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The surgical site wound infection was significantly lower with single-ring wound protectors, and dual-ring wound protectors in subjects with lower gastrointestinal surgery compared with no wound protector. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 5 out of 28 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

An Antibacterial and Antiadhesion In Situ Forming Hydrogel with Sol-Spray System for Noncompressible Hemostasis

Noncompressible hemorrhage is a major cause of posttrauma death and occupies the leading position among potentially preventable trauma-associated deaths. Recently, multiple studies have shown that strongly adhesive materials can serve as hemostatic materials for noncompressible hemorrhage. However, the risk of severe tissue adhesion limits the use of adhesive hydrogels as hemostatic materials. Here, we report a promising material system comprising an injectable sol and liquid spray as a potential solution. Injectable sol is mainly composed of gelatin (GEL) and sodium alginate (SA), which possess hemostasis and adhesive properties. The liquid spray component, a mixture of tannic acid (TA) and calcium chloride (CaCl₂), rapidly forms an antibacterial, antiadhesive and smooth film structure upon contact with the sol. In vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrated the bioabsorbable, biocompatible, antibacterial, and antiadhesion properties of the in situ forming hydrogel with a sol-spray system. Importantly, the addition of tranexamic acid (TXA) enhanced hemostatic performance in noncompressible areas and in deep wound hemorrhage. Our study offers a new multifunctional hydrogel system to achieve noncompressible hemostasis.

Effect of preoperative biliary stent on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: Neoadjuvant versus upfront treatment

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the effect of preoperative biliary stent, during long-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on postoperative complications. The aim of the study is to analyze whether the association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and biliary stent increases overall and infectious complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Data for 538 consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Four groups of patients were identified: neoadjuvant chemotherapy + biliary stent (171 patients), neoadjuvant chemotherapy-no biliary stent (65 patients), upfront surgery + biliary stent (184 patients), and upfront surgery-no biliary stent (118 patients). Median neoadjuvant chemotherapy duration was 6 months. The main outcome of the study was the occurrence of postoperative infections.

RESULTS

No differences among the 4 groups were observed for pancreaticoduodenectomy-specific complications (ie, POPF, DGE, PPH). Infectious complications, in particular surgical site infections, were more frequent in neoadjuvant chemotherapy + biliary stent group (P = 0.001). At multivariate analysis, biliary stent was significantly associated with postoperative infectious complications in the overall cohort (odds ratio 1.996, confidence interval 95% 1.29-3.09, P = .002) and in neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients (odds ratio 5.974, 95% confidence interval 2.52-14.13, P < .001). Biliary stent significantly increased the comprehensive complication index by 9.5% (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.64, P = 0.024) in the overall cohort and 18.9% (95% confidence interval 0.22-1.23, P = .005) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. The presence of multidrug-resistant microorganisms in intraoperative bile culture was not influenced by long-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients, biliary stent increased the occurrence of postoperative infectious complications and surgical site infections, while the incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in intraoperative bile culture was similar between groups.

Defeating Cancel Culture in Surgical Site Infection Research: A Plea to Include Microbial Cultures and Antibiotic Sensitivity Data

Background: Despite advances in infection control measures, surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a real and present danger to patients. In most studies addressing SSI prevention measures, recommendations are often made in the absence of information such as culture results, the antibiotic agents used for prophylaxis, and antibiotic sensitivity data. The aim of this study is to document this latter claim by reviewing studies published in the last five years in highly read and cited surgical journals. Methods: A systematic review evaluating SSIs from four highly cited surgical journals, Annals of Surgery, the British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, and the Journal of the American College of Surgeons was conducted for articles published between 2016 and 2021. We focused our analysis on the following key features: how SSI is defined; bacterial culture information; antibiotic sensitivity data; and identification of the antibiotic chosen for prophylaxis. We hypothesized that, in most cases among the journals queried, this information would be unavailable. Results: Of the 71 studies included, 32 diagnosed SSIs based on criteria developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention while five provided no definition of SSI. Of the 27 articles recommending increasing antibiotic usage, only one study performed antibiotic sensitivity testing to guide the antibiotic choice. Of 71 studies reviewed, only one reported all key features we considered to be important for SSI antibiotic decision-making; 46 reported none of the key features. Conclusions: Among publications addressing SSIs in four highly cited surgical journals, key information regarding diagnosis and with which to base antibiotic recommendations, is routinely unavailable.

The effect of intraoperative wound protector use on the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of intraoperative wound protectors on the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all studies comparing wound protector use with no wound protector use in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. SSI (superficial or deep) was considered primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included superficial SSI, deep SSI, and organ-space SSI. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system.

RESULTS

A total of 12159 patients from four studies were included. The included populations in both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The use of wound protector was associated with lower risk of superficial or deep SSI (OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.70, P<0.00001), superficial SSI (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76, P<0.0001), and organ-space SSI (OR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P=0.0002). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of the risk of deep SSI (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.43-1.06, P=0.09) although this may be subject to type 2 error.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of current study suggests that the use of intraoperative wound protector during pancreatoduodenectomy may reduce the risk of postoperative SSI. The quality of the available evidence is moderate with high certainty. While evidence from future randomised controlled trials could increase the robustness of our conclusions, we do not hesitate to recommend the use of wound protectors during pancreatoduodenectomy based on the current evidence.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. The effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing infection of the surgical sites is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of a wound edge protector (WEP) in reducing SSI rates after abdominal surgery.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published up to September 2021. Publications were retrieved if they contain primary data on the use of WEPs in reducing SSI compared with standard care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed for different WEP types, surgical sites, and levels of contamination. The outcome of interest was a clinically defined SSI. Qualitative variables were pooled using risk ratios (RRs).

Results

Twenty-two eligible randomized clinical trials involving 4492 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WEP was associated with the reduced incidence of overall SSI (RR = 0.66; 95 per cent c.i. 0.53 to 0.83; P = 0.0003), and superficial SSI (RR = 0.59; 95 per cent c.i. 0.38 to 0.91; P = 0.02). In addition, WEP also successfully reduced the risk of SSI in clean-contaminated wounds (RR = 0.61; 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02) as well as in contaminated wounds (RR = 0.47; 95 per cent c.i. 0.33 to 0.67; P < 0.0001); however, WEP did not reduce SSI incidence in colorectal surgery (RR = 0.68; 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.05).

Conclusion

This study suggests that WEP was efficient in reducing superficial SSI. Both double-ringed and single-ringed devices were efficient in reducing SSI. WEP was effective in reducing SSI incidence in clean-contaminated and contaminated surgery; however, its use does not reduce the SSI rate in colorectal surgery.

Effect of wound protectors on surgical site infection in patients undergoing whipple procedure

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data persists for use of wound protectors in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). We aimed to examine, at a multi-institutional level, the effect of wound protectors on superficial or deep SSI following elective open PD.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program pancreatectomy procedure targeted participant use file was queried from 2016 to 2018. Planned open PD procedures were extracted. Univariable, multivariable, and propensity score matched analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

11,562 patients undergoing PD were evaluated, 27% of which used wound protectors. Wound protectors decreased superficial or deep SSI risk in all patients (5.7% vs. 9.5%, P < 0.001), patients who have (6.6% vs. 12.2%, P < 0.001) and who did not have (4.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.011) a biliary stent. Propensity score matched analysis confirms such results (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.46-0.69, P < 0.001 overall, OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95, P = 0.03 without biliary stent, OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73, P < 0.001 with biliary stent).

CONCLUSIONS

Wound protectors reduce risk of superficial or deep SSI in patients undergoing PD, yet only a quarter of PD were associated with their use. This protective effect is seen whether patients have or have not had preoperative biliary stenting.

Negative pressure wound therapy for prevention of surgical site infection in patients at high risk after clean-contaminated major pancreatic resections: A single-center, phase 3, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are an important burden of pancreatic surgery, prolonging hospitalization and delaying adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing in terms of the prevention of non-organ-space surgical site infection (superficial and deep surgical site infection) in the high-risk setting.

METHODS

The trial was conducted at the University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy, from July 25, 2018, through October 10, 2019, among adults undergoing surgery for periampullary neoplasms. Only patients at high-risk for surgical site infection based on body mass index, diabetes, steroids, neoadjuvant therapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index, duration of surgery, and blood loss were included and randomized.

RESULTS

A total of 351 patients were screened, 100 met the inclusion criteria and were 1:1 allocated in the 2 arms. The difference in terms of non-organ-space surgical site infection comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing was not significant (10.9 vs 12.2%, risk ratio [RR] 1.144, confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.324-4.040, P = 1.000). Hematomas (4.3 vs 2%, RR 1.565, CI 95% 0.312-7.848, P = .609) and organ-space infections (46.7 vs 43.8%, RR 1.059, CI 95% 0.711-1.576, P = .836) were similar. Negative pressure wound therapy prevented the development of seromas (0 vs 12.2%, RR 0.483, CI 95% 0.390-0.599, P = .027). The aesthetic result assessed on postoperative day 7 was better in the negative pressure wound therapy group (visual analogue scale, 8 vs 7, P = .029; Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, 3.2 vs 2.5, P = .009), but it was no more evident on postoperative day 30 after a total number of 23 dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard sterile dressing, negative pressure wound therapy is not associated with an improved rate of non-organ-space surgical site infection after surgery for periampullary neoplasms in patients at high risk for surgical site infection. Additional studies will help identify the population that could benefit most from this intervention.

Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections in Hepatic and Pancreatic Resection

BACKGROUND

The risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after HPB surgery are poorly defined. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the SSI rates and risk factors for SSI after pancreas and liver resection.

METHODS

The PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. The primary outcome measure was pooled SSI rates. The secondary outcome measure was risk factor profile determination for SSI.

RESULTS

The overall rate of SSI after pancreatic and liver resection was 25.1 and 10.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). 32% of pancreaticoduodenectomies developed SSI vs 23% after distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.001). The rate of incisional SSI in the pancreatic group was 9% and organ/space SSI 16.5%. Biliary resection during liver surgery was a risk factor for SSI (25.0 vs 15.7%, p = 0.002). After liver resection, the incisional SSI rate was 7.6% and the organ space SSI rate was 10.2%. Pancreas-specific SSI risk factors were pre-operative biliary drainage (p < 0.001), chemotherapy (p < 0.001) and radiotherapy (p = 0.007). Liver-specific SSI risk factors were smoking (p = 0.046), low albumin (p < 0.001) and significant blood loss (p < 0.001). The rate of organ/space SSI in patients with POPF was 47.7% and in patients without POPF 7.3% (p < 0.001). Organ/space SSI rate was 43% in patients with bile leak and 10% in those without (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factors for SSI following pancreatic and liver resections are distinct from each other, with higher SSI rates after pancreatic resection. Pancreaticoduodenectomy has increased risk of SSI compared to distal pancreatectomy. Similarly, biliary resections during liver surgery increase the rates of SSI.