A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates

Bathing with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate versus routine care for preventing surgical site infections after pancreatic surgery: a single-centre randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to investigate whether bathing with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing routine pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a large-volume pancreatic centre between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Patients undergoing clean-contaminated pancreatic surgery were enrolled and randomized into an intervention arm (bathing with a 2% CHG wipe) and a control arm (routine care, soap, and water). The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI after pancreatic surgery within 30 days.

RESULTS

Overall, 614 patients (intervention arm, 311; control arm, 303) were included in intention-to-treat analysis. In total, 8.8% (54/614) patients developed SSI. The incidence of SSI in the intervention arm was 6.8% (21/311) and 10.9% (33/303) in control arm, and the difference did not reach the level of statistical significance (p 0.070). The time to SSI was significantly extended when patients were in the intervention arm (log-rank test, p 0.047). The intervention did not significantly reduce the incidence of healthcare-associated infection, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and bloodstream infection. No adverse events were observed. However, in the per-protocol analysis among 519 patients, the intervention arm showed a significantly lower incidence of overall SSI than that of those in the control arm (21/272, 7.7% vs. 33/242, 13.4%, p 0.036).

DISCUSSION

Bathing with 2% CHG could potentially reduce the incidence of SSI for the patients scheduled to undergo pancreatic surgery for which further well-designed clinical trials are warranted.

The Utility of Chlorhexidine Cloth Use for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Surgical as well as Basic Science Applications: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Skin antisepsis, such as ready-to-use, no-rinse, 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, is one of the fundamental cornerstones for reducing periprosthetic infections after primary lower extremity total joint arthroplasties. This systematic review presents background material concerning the problem and methods to deal with and then describes the use of chlorhexidine cloth prophylaxis related to various surgical applications. The authors found an almost universal benefit of the cloths. In the meta-analysis, the total pooled effect showed a reduction in infection rates. The use of chlorhexidine cloths is appropriate for prophylaxis for knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, and a variety of other surgeries.

Management of post-surgical infection of onychocryptosis with topical application of hyaluronic acid versus antibacterial ointments

Introduction

The prevention and cure of postoperative infections has been a source of study over the years and is currently being studied. In this bibliographic review, a comparison between the different products used for the prevention and treatment of postsurgical infections has been procured, likewise, being able to determine which would be the best option for the treatment of post-surgical infections. In this bibliographic review we focus on Onychocryptosis because it is an emerging problem today. Many surgeries are performed to fix this condition, which increases the risk of infections.

Material

databases, including PubMed and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations, were searched up to January 2021. The search included studies and trials in humans on the use of hyaluronic acid and antibacterial ointments in various conditions or diseases.

Results

18 articles were analyzed individually, which included randomized studies of Hyaluronic Acid, various antibiotics and honey, and variables used topically. 3 articles were also selected to explain onychocryptosis and postoperative infections.

Conclusion

Despite being able to determine which antibiotic would be the best, and whether hyaluronic acid can be used for the prevention and/or cure of post-surgical infections, this review emphasizes that there is still a need for more specific studies on its use of these variables, both in post-surgical infections in general and in post-surgical onychocryptosis infections.

Are preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate showers associated with a reduction in surgical site infection following craniotomy? A retrospective cohort analysis of 3126 surgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a complication linked to increased costs and length of hospital stay. Prevention of SSI is important to reduce its burden on individual patients and the healthcare system. The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) showers on SSI rates following cranial surgery.

METHODS

In November 2013, a preoperative CHG shower protocol was implemented at the authors' institution. A total of 3126 surgical procedures were analyzed, encompassing a time frame from April 2012 to April 2016. Cohorts before and after implementation of the CHG shower protocol were evaluated for differences in SSI rates.

RESULTS

The overall SSI rate was 0.6%. No significant differences (p = 0.11) were observed between the rate of SSI of the 892 patients in the preimplementation cohort (0.2%) and that of the 2234 patients in the postimplementation cohort (0.8%). Following multivariable analysis, implementation of preoperative CHG showers was not associated with decreased SSI (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 0.67-13.1; p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study, according to sample size, to examine the association between CHG showers and SSI following craniotomy. CHG showers did not significantly alter the risk of SSI after a cranial procedure.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Contemporary Review to Reduce Groin Surgical Site Infections in Vascular Surgery

Surgical site infection (SSIs) in lower extremity vascular procedures is a major contributor to patient morbidity and mortality. Despite previous advancements in preoperative and postoperative care, the surgical infection rate in vascular surgery remains high, particularly when groin incisions are involved. However, successfully targeting modifiable risk factors reduces the surgical site infection incidence in vascular surgery patients. We conducted an extensive literature review to evaluate the efficacy of various preventive strategies for groin surgical site infections. We discuss the role of preoperative showers, preoperative and postoperative antibiotics, collagen gentamicin implants, iodine impregnated drapes, types of skin incisions, negative pressure wound therapy, and prophylactic muscle flap transposition in preventing surgical site infection in the groin after vascular surgical procedures.

Antimicrobial approaches in the prevention of Staphylococcus aureus infections: a review

Background

The prophylactic application of antimicrobials that are active against Staphylococcus aureus can prevent infections. However, implementation in clinical practice is limited. We have reviewed antimicrobial approaches for the prevention of S. aureus infections.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and trial registries using synonyms for S. aureus, infections and prevention as search terms. We included randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews only.

Results

Most studies were conducted with mupirocin. Mupirocin is effective in preventing S. aureus infections in patients receiving dialysis treatment and in surgical patients, particularly if the patients are carriers of S. aureus. The combination of mupirocin and chlorhexidine, but not chlorhexidine alone, is also effective against S. aureus infections. So far, vaccines have not proven successful in protecting against S. aureus infections. Regarding prophylactic povidone-iodine and systemic antibiotics, there is limited evidence supporting their effectiveness against S. aureus infections. Antimicrobial honey has not been proven to be more effective or non-inferior to mupirocin in protecting against S. aureus infections.

Conclusions

The current evidence supports the use of mupirocin as prophylaxis for preventing infections with S. aureus, particularly in carriers and in the surgical setting or in patients receiving dialysis treatment. Other antimicrobial agents have not been sufficiently proven to be effective so far, or have been proven ineffective. New trials with vaccines and anti-staphylococcal peptides are currently underway and may lead to new preventive strategies in the future.

Chlorhexidine Showers are Associated With a Reduction in Surgical Site Infection Following Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 4266 Consecutive Surgeries

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication following spinal surgery. Prevention is critical to maintaining safe patient care and reducing additional costs associated with treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of preoperative chlorhexidine (CHG) showers on SSI rates following fusion and nonfusion spine surgery.

METHODS

A mandatory preoperative CHG shower protocol was implemented at our institution in November 2013. A cohort comparison of 4266 consecutive patients assessed differences in SSI rates for the pre- and postimplementation periods. Subgroup analysis was performed on the type of spinal surgery (eg, fusion vs nonfusion). Data represent all spine surgeries performed between April 2012 and April 2016.

RESULTS

The overall mean SSI rate was 0.4%. There was no significant difference between the pre- (0.7%) and postimplementation periods (0.2%; P = .08). Subgroup analysis stratified by procedure type showed that the SSI rate for the nonfusion patients was significantly lower in the post- (0.1%) than the preimplementation group (0.7%; P = .02). There was no significant difference between SSI rates for the pre- (0.8%) and postimplementation groups (0.3%) for the fusion cohort (P = .21). In multivariate analysis, the implementation of preoperative CHG showers were associated with significantly decreased odds of SSI (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [0.03-0.55], P < .01).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study investigating the efficacy of preoperative CHG showers on SSI following spinal surgery. In adjusted multivariate analysis, CHG showering was associated with a significant decrease in SSI following spinal surgery.

Skin preparation for abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Surgical site infections (SSI) are a public health issue. The purpose of this review is to review the literature on methods of pre-operative skin preparation for the prevention of SSI in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

In order to obtain the best level of evidence, only meta-analyses and randomized controlled clinical trials were selected from the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. High-powered non-randomized studies were included when results were not available for the questions asked. The primary endpoint was the rate of SSI within 30 days.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 20 selected studies suggested that hair removal in the operative field is not recommended except when it interferes with surgery; in this case, hair clipping or chemical depilation is recommended and shaving should be banned. For the pre-operative shower, the choice of a detergent product with or without antiseptic does not seem to matter, and there were no published data on the required number of showers or the interval before surgery. Application of an alcohol-based solution to the operative field for cutaneous disinfection is recommended; the products used seem to be equivalent, and there is no need for pre-operative detergent scrubbing. There is no strong evidence to recommend adhesive plastic drapes for clean or contaminated surgery.

CONCLUSION

Some recommendations on skin preparation before abdominal surgery to reduce the rate of SSI are based on a high level of evidence. Other recommendations such as the number and duration of pre-operative showers or use of adhesive plastic skin drapes are less well supported.

Surgical Site Infections: An Update

Surgical site infections (SSIs) lead to adverse patient outcomes, including prolonged hospitalization and death. Wound contamination occurs with each incision, but proven strategies exist to decrease the risk of SSI. In particular, improved adherence to evidence-based preventative measures related to appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis can decrease the rate of SSI. Aggressive surgical debridement and effective antimicrobial therapy are needed to optimize the treatment of SSI.

Preoperative bathing of the surgical site with chlorhexidine for infection prevention: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine is recommended as a measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) despite uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. This review aimed to assess the effect of bathing with 4% chlorhexidine on the prevention of SSIs in clean surgeries compared with bathing with placebo solution or soap.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews and the Cochrane manual were followed. Sources were MEDLINE and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases and manual search of references from evaluated studies. We included randomized studies evaluating clean surgical wounds and reporting SSIs after preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

A total of 243 primary studies were identified and 8 were considered methodologically appropriate based on the Jadad Scale. Data were gathered from 10,655 patients. The global SSI rate was 7.2%. The SSI rate for chlorhexidine bathing, placebo, and soap without antiseptic groups was 7.1%, 9.1%, and 5.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the infection rates was not found in the comparison between patients subjected to preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine versus placebo solution (relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.09). The same absence of benefit was observed comparing chlorhexidine bathing with soap (relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess the effect of preoperative chlorhexidine bathing on infection rates following clean surgery before the incorporation of this intervention in health care services.

Use of Chlorhexidine Preparations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic because of its rapid and persistent action. It is well tolerated and available in different formulations at various concentrations. Chlorhexidine can be used for pre-operative skin cleansing, surgical site preparation, hand antisepsis of the surgical team and intra-articular irrigation of infected joints. The optimal intra-articular concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate in irrigation solution is 2%, to provide a persistent decrease in biofilm formation, though cytotoxicity might be an issue. Although chlorhexidine is relatively cheap, routine use of chlorhexidine without evidence of clear benefits can lead to unnecessary costs, adverse effects and even emergence of resistance. This review focuses on the current applications of various chlorhexidine formulations in TJA. As the treatment of PJI is challenging and expensive, effective preparations of chlorhexidine could help in the prevention and control of PJI.

Evidence-based Practices in Infection Control

Abstract Evidence can be obtained from clinical trials and bacteriological studies. The latter consist mainly of measuring reductions in colonization, or reductions in bacterial counts on naturally or artificially contaminated surfaces, following the introduction of the measure to be tested. Controlled clinical trials usually provide the best evidence, but are infrequently carried out due to the large number of subjects required, low initial infection rates and a multiplicity of associated factors. Bacteriological studies can be carried out more easily and can often provide statistically significant results not readily available in clinical studies, but they require care in interpretation. Studies involving bacterial counts in the inanimate environment are particularly likely to give misleading results, but have often provided useful confirmatory evidence in eliminating rituals.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Preventing surgical site infections: a randomized, open-label trial of nasal mupirocin ointment and nasal povidone-iodine solution

BACKGROUND

Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization before surgery reduces risk of surgical site infection (SSI). The regimen of nasal mupirocin ointment and topical chlorhexidine gluconate is effective, but cost and patient compliance may be a barrier. Nasal povidone-iodine solution may provide an alternative to mupirocin.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial comparing SSI after arthroplasty or spine fusion in patients receiving topical chlorhexidine wipes in combination with either twice daily application of nasal mupirocin ointment during the 5 days before surgery or 2 applications of povidone-iodine solution into each nostril within 2 hours of surgical incision. The primary study end point was deep SSI within the 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

In the modified intent-to-treat analysis, a deep SSI developed after 14 of 855 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 6 of 842 surgical procedures in the povidone-iodine group (P = .1); S. aureus deep SSI developed after 5 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 1 surgical procedure in the povidone-iodine group (P = .2). In the per protocol analysis, S. aureus deep SSI developed in 5 of 763 surgical procedures in the mupirocin group and 0 of 776 surgical procedures in the povidone-iodine group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal povidone-iodine may be considered as an alternative to mupirocin in a multifaceted approach to reduce SSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313182.

Prevention of surgical site infections

In the current era of pay-for-performance standards, the incidence of surgical site infections is increasingly becoming an institutional marker of quality assurance. Surgical site infections lead to increased morbidity and mortality in the surgical population and contribute to an already rising healthcare cost. As a result, the surgical community goes to great lengths to prevent this costly and occasionally lethal complication. Many practices are evidence based, however, many are not. In this article, the most commonly used preventive strategies in practice today and the evidence behind each are reviewed. In addition, an overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology and microbiology of surgical site infections will be provided.

Preoperative chlorhexidine shower or bath for prevention of surgical site infection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine showering is frequently recommended as an important preoperative measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). However, the efficacy of this approach is uncertain.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases was undertaken to identify prospective controlled trials evaluating whole-body preoperative bathing with chlorhexidine versus placebo or no bath for prevention of SSI. Summary risk ratios were calculated using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and a Mantel-Haenzel dichotomous effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria with a total of 17,932 patients: 7,952 patients received a chlorhexidine bath, and 9,980 patients were allocated to various comparator groups. Overall, 6.8% of patients developed SSI in the chlorhexidine group compared with 7.2% of patients in the comparator groups. Chlorhexidine bathing did not significantly reduce overall incidence of SSI when compared with soap, placebo, or no shower or bath (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.05, P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of available clinical trials suggests no appreciable benefit of preoperative whole-body chlorhexidine bathing for prevention of SSI. However, most studies omitted details of chlorhexidine application. Better designed trials with a specified duration and frequency of exposure to chlorhexidine are needed to determine whether preoperative whole-body chlorhexidine bathing reduces SSI.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 29 June 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012 Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to June Week 3 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations June 27, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 25), EBSCO CINAHL (1882 to 21 June 2012) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fourth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

A fresh look at preoperative body washing

National guidelines do not support preoperative body washing to reduce surgical site infections, instead recommending bathing or showering with soap. Yet preoperative body washing continues to be widely used in many hospitals across Europe. This paper suggests that existing trials of preoperative body washing, upon which guidelines are based, are dated and proposes a new investigation of preoperative body washing using modern definitions of surgical site infection with standardised patient follow up, modern surgical techniques and well designed trials. This paper provides a critique of existing guidelines and describes a randomised trial with 60 participants to compare the effect of soap and two antiseptic washing products on colony forming units (CFUs) for up to six hours. Chlorhexidine gluconate and octenidine were significantly more effective than soap in reducing CFUs in the underarm, and chlorhexidine was significantly more effective than soap in reducing CFUs in the groin.

Surgical site infection prevention: how we do it

BACKGROUND

Efforts to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) employ methods that are valid scientifically, but each institution and each surgeon also incorporates methods believed to be useful although this has not been proved by clinical trials.

METHODS

The surgical literature was reviewed, as were practices at the University of Virginia that the authors believe are of value for the prevention of SSI.

RESULTS

Preventive antibiotics are established measures. A case can be made for increasing the dose in patients with a large body mass, and antibiotics probably should be re-administered during procedures lasting longer than 3 h. Chlorhexidine showers for the patient are not proven; however, they are inexpensive and of potential benefit. Hair removal is always done with clippers and in the operating room at the time of the procedure. No scientific case can be made specifically for using antiseptic at the surgical site before the incision. Keeping the blood glucose concentration and the core body temperature near normal probably are important, but how close to normal is unclear. Transfusion enhances SSI, but leukocyte reduction of transfused blood may be of benefit. Some evidence supports the value of antibacterial suture in preventing SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Many proven and potentially valid methods are employed to prevent SSI. Coordinated and standardized protocols with good data collection can assist the multi-disciplinary efforts to reduce SSI within the unique practices of a given institution.

Staphylococcal surgical site infections

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading cause of surgical site infections (SSI) in the United States. In particular, SSI caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a devastating complication, leading to increased mortality rates, increased length of hospitalization, and increased costs. Proven strategies for prevention of SSI caused by S aureus include addressing modifiable risk factors and correct choice and timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Other strategies, including decolonization and the use of vancomycin, remain controversial.

Surgical site infection, preoperative body washing and hair removal

Estimates suggest one in 20 patients develop an infection following surgery, costing the NHS around pounds 1bn each year (SSHAIP 2004). This article discusses surgical site infections and the commonest bacteria which cause them. It then explores two practices, preoperative body washing and preoperative hairremoval, and their effect on bacterial reduction and surgical site infection.

Use of a surgical preparation and sterile dressing change during office visit treatment of chronic foot and ankle wounds decreases the incidence of infection and treatment costs

Foot and ankle surgeons work with a patient population burdened by multiple factors that adversely affect wound healing and the ability to combat infection. As a result, many of these patients are seen for treatment of chronic ulcerations on their lower extremities that are highly susceptible to colonization and possible progression to a limb- and/or life-threatening infection. The Limb Preservation Service at the Madigan Army Medical Center hypothesized that implementation of a standardized protocol involving a formal physician-directed surgical preparation of the affected lower extremity and a physician-applied sterile dressing at each outpatient clinic appointment would reduce the incidence of infection, use of systemic antibiosis, and thus the requirement for frequent follow-up office appointments. Initiation of this protocol resulted in the reduction of infection to the extent that antibiotic need was eliminated. The frequency of office visits required for follow-up was also significantly reduced. This is key in treating a patient population in which the financial burden to treat chronic wounds and associated infections represents a large portion of the health care money spent for their medical care.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The second smaller study found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Meta-analysis of preoperative antiseptic bathing in the prevention of surgical site infection

Background

Preoperative bathing with an antiseptic solution is widely used to prevent surgical site infection, but trial results are conflicting.

Methods

Trials were identified by searches of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register. Studies were eligible if they compared an antiseptic solution used in preoperative bathing with a non-antiseptic washing agent or with no bathing and if they reported data on surgical site infection.

Results

Six trials with a total of 10 007 patients were included; all of them used 4 per cent chlorhexidine gluconate. Three trials with 7691 patients compared chlorhexidine with placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine did not reduce surgical site infection rate; the relative risk (RR) was 0·91. Including only trials of high quality, the RR was 0·95. Three trials with 1443 patients compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; no differences in the surgical site infection rates were detected, and the RR was 1·02. Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing. The surgical site wound infection rate in the two groups was similar, and the RR was 0·70.

Conclusions

The evidence does not support preoperative bathing with chlorhexidine as a means of reducing surgical site wound infection.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 0.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing. No difference was found in the postoperative SSI rate between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of no benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Management of Wound Complications From Cesarean Delivery

Multiple factors account for the increasing number of cesarean delivery wound complications in the United States; among them are an increase in cesarean delivery and an increase in the number of overweight and obese patients. This article reviews the pathophysiology of acute wound healing. Risk factors for cesarean delivery wound complications are identified and described. Clinical practices that can reduce the risk of developing wound complications, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, are considered. Treatment guidelines to accelerate wound healing such as secondary closure and negative pressure wound therapy in disrupted wounds are proposed. Older guidelines for management of wounds using secondary intention are critiqued. Historical methods of wound care such as the practice of using certain cleansers and the practice of wet to dry dressings are outdated. Modern wound healing products are described.

TARGET AUDIENCE

Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completion of this article, the reader should be able to describe the effects of obesity on cesarean delivery wound healing, to improve methods of wound healing in the obese patient, and to explain why wet to dry dressing changes are not effective wound management.

Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999" presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.1,2 Part I, "Surgical Site Infection: An Overview," describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis. Part II, "Recommendations for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection," represents the consensus of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) regarding strategies for the prevention of SSIs.3 Whenever possible, the recommendations in Part II are based on data from well-designed scientific studies. However, there are a limited number of studies that clearly validate risk factors and prevention measures for SSI. By necessity, available studies have often been conducted in narrowly defined patient populations or for specific kinds of operations, making generalization of their findings to all specialties and types of operations potentially problematic. This is especially true regarding the implementation of SSI prevention measures. Finally, some of the infection control practices routinely used by surgical teams cannot be rigorously studied for ethical or logistical reasons (e.g., wearing vs not wearing gloves). Thus, some of the recommendations in Part II are based on a strong theoretical rationale and suggestive evidence in the absence of confirmatory scientific knowledge.It has been estimated that approximately 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in "ambulatory," "same-day," or "outpatient" operating rooms by the turn of the century.4 In recommending various SSI prevention methods, this document makes no distinction between surgical care delivered in such settings and that provided in conventional inpatient operating rooms. This document is primarily intended for use by surgeons, operating room nurses, postoperative inpatient and clinic nurses, infection control professionals, anesthesiologists, healthcare epidemiologists, and other personnel directly responsible for the prevention of nosocomial infections. This document does not: Specifically address issues unique to burns, trauma, transplant procedures, or transmission of bloodborne pathogens from healthcare worker to patient, nor does it specifically address details of SSI prevention in pediatric surgical practice. It has been recently shown in a multicenter study of pediatric surgical patients that characteristics related to the operations are more important than those related to the physiologic status of the patients.5 In general, all SSI prevention measures effective in adult surgical care are indicated in pediatric surgical care. Specifically address procedures performed outside of the operating room (e.g., endoscopic procedures), nor does it provide guidance for infection prevention for invasive procedures such as cardiac catheterization or interventional radiology. Nonetheless, it is likely that many SSI prevention strategies also could be applied or adapted to reduce infectious complications associated with these procedures. Specifically recommend SSI prevention methods unique to minimally invasive operations (i.e., laparoscopic surgery). Available SSI surveillance data indicate that laparoscopic operations generally have a lower or comparable SSI risk when contrasted to open operations.6-11 SSI prevention measures applicable in open operations (e.g., open cholecystectomy) are indicated for their laparoscopic counterparts (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Recommend specific antiseptic agents for patient preoperative skin preparations or for healthcare worker hand/forearm antisepsis. Hospitals should choose from products recommended for these activitie

Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

The “Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999” presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.

Part I, “Surgical Site Infection: An Overview,” describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis.

Wound infection rates: the importance of definition and post-discharge wound surveillance

The importance of definition and post-discharge wound surveillance on reported wound infection rates have been studied, using data taken from a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of the effect of whole body disinfection on postoperative wound infection rates. All patients admitted for an elective clean or potentially contaminated surgical procedure over a 32-month period were recruited into the study. Of the 3733 patients recruited, 3466 completed the study. Wound infection (which is defined for this study) is the main outcome that was examined. The effect of careful post-discharge follow-up of patients to look for wound infections was analysed for age, wound type and presence or absence of a drain. Sixty percent of postoperative wound infections occurred after discharge. A rising wound infection rate with increasing age was observed in the in-hospital cohort whereas the incidence of outpatient wound infections declined with age. This finding is attributed to the longer in-hospital stay encountered in patients above 50 years old (median, 3 vs. 5 days, P < 0.00001). Although clean operations had a significantly lower in-hospital infection rate, potentially contaminated procedures had a lower outpatient infection rate. A similar picture was observed in other subgroups of operations including horizontal versus vertical wounds and use of drains. When assessing reported wound infection rates, the definition of wound infection used and the extent of follow-up must be known to enable accurate assessment of the results.

Does the addition of pre-operative skin preparation with povidone-iodine reduce groin sepsis following arterial surgery?

Sixty-four consecutive patients undergoing elective vascular surgery involving exposure of the femoral artery at the groin were randomized to one of two groups. Group A (N = 34) received twice-daily skin preparation with 10% aqueous povidone-iodine for 48 h preoperatively, while group B (N = 30) did not. Both groups were examined on a daily basis following surgery and any discharge from the wound was recorded and sent for bacteriological culture. The groups were well matched for age, sex and the type of vascular graft material used. In group A there were six (18.7%) groin wound infections and in group B there were five (17.2%). In this series of patients the addition of preoperative skin preparation with 10% povidone-iodine to standard peri-operative prophylaxis had no effect on the incidence of postoperative groin wound sepsis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of chlorhexidine detergent in preoperative whole-body disinfection in wound infection prophylaxis

A total of 3482 general surgical patients entered a trial in which they had a chlorhexidine or placebo detergent shower three times before elective clean wound or potentially contaminated surgery. Patients who showered with a chlorhexidine detergent (N = 1744) had a significant reduction in skin flora compared with those who showered with a placebo detergent (N = 1738). The majority of wound infections occurred outside hospital (312 outpatient infections vs. 201 inpatient infections). Wound infection rates were similar in the chlorhexidine and placebo groups (5.79% vs. 5.75% for inpatient infections and 8.54% vs. 9.38% for outpatient infections). The average hospital cost of both non-infected and infected patients was higher in the chlorhexidine group. The average cost of a non-infected chlorhexidine patient was 847.95 pounds as opposed to 804.60 pounds for a non-infected placebo patient, whilst the average cost of an infected patient was 1459.70 pounds (chlorhexidine) and 1414.22 pounds (placebo). A cross-match comparison of patients undergoing vascular surgery revealed no statistical significance in the difference between the two experimental groups. Patients were matched for age, sex, type of operation and surgeon. We conclude that preoperative whole-body disinfection with a chlorhexidine detergent is not a cost-effective treatment for reducing wound infection.

The effect of whole body disinfection on intraoperative wound contamination

As part of a large whole body disinfection (WBD) trial two small sub-groups of patients who showered preoperatively with either a 4% chlorhexidine (CHX: N = 29) or placebo (N =27) detergent were studied to assess intraoperative wound contamination. The groups were well matched for age, sex and length of surgery. A membrane filter contact technique was used for bacterial recovery from the wounds after the initial skin incision and before wound closure. The membrane filters were incubated aerobically on blood agar plates with a CHX neutralizer for 48 h at 37 degrees C and colonies were counted. The results show a significant difference, between the bacterial counts at the start and end of surgery in the CHX and placebo groups. There was no difference in bacterial counts at the start of surgery between the CHX and placebo groups. There was a significant difference in the bacterial counts at the end of surgery between the CHX and placebo groups. These results indicate that preoperative WBD with CHX reduces intraoperative wound contamination but the effect of this on postoperative wound sepsis rates awaits the results of a large WBD trial.

Effects of whole body disinfection on skin flora in patients undergoing elective surgery

Bacterial skin flora were studied in two groups of patients having three showers with either a 4% chlorhexidine detergent solution (Group A, N = 57) or a placebo detergent (Group B, N = 58). Previous reports on the efficacy of chlorhexidine in decreasing bacterial counts on the skin were confirmed and the time taken to recolonization (median 5 days; range 1-10 days) was in broad agreement with previous reports. However, concern regarding the colonization of the skin of the patients in the chlorhexidine group by potential pathogens during the recolonization period appears unfounded as there was no significant difference in the incidence of non-resident skin flora between the chlorhexidine (17/57; 30%) and the placebo (14/58; 24%) groups. These non-residents are generally lost from the skin before discharge in the chlorhexidine group but nine patients in the placebo group had abnormal skin flora at discharge from hospital. All those patients tested after discharge had lost the non-resident flora within 2 weeks of discharge. The results of this study indicate that recolonization of the skin after whole body disinfection does not present a clinical problem.

Rationalizing whole body disinfection

As part of the preparation for a large prospective trial investigating the effect of preoperative whole body disinfection on the postoperative wound infection rate, this preliminary volunteer study was carried out to establish (a) the optimum number of preoperative washes required to achieve a maximum level of skin disinfection and (b) if showering or bathing is a more efficient method of skin disinfection. Ten healthy volunteers were recruited. The results show a significant decrease (p less than 0.005) in the skin flora after the first and second showers (a decrease of 93.55% and 77.49% respectively), but no further significant fall with subsequent showers. There was a significant fall (p less than 0.005) in skin flora after a single bath (a decrease of 70.98%) with subsequent baths producing no further significant reduction in skin flora. From these results it is recommended that three preoperative showers with 4% chlorhexidine detergent be used as an optimum preoperative whole body disinfection regimen. Three showers ensures against less thorough washing by the patients compared to the healthy volunteers in the study and fits easily into a preoperative regimen.