General Assembly, Prevention, Surgical Site Preparation: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections

Best products for skin antisepsis

BACKGROUND

Skin antiseptics are used for several purposes before surgical procedures, for bathing high-risk patients as a means of reducing central line-associated infections and other health care associated infections.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to update the evidence on skin antiseptic products and practices.

RESULTS

Current guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend preoperative baths or showers with a plain or antimicrobial soap prior to surgery, but do not make recommendations on the timing of baths, the total number of baths needed, or about the use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CGH)-impregnated cloths. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that pre-operative surgical hand antisepsis using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub yields similar SSI rates. Other studies have reported that using an alcohol-based hand rub caused less skin irritation, was easier to use, and required shorter scrub times than using antimicrobial soap. Current SSI prevention guidelines recommend using an alcohol-containing antiseptic for surgical site infection. Commonly used products contain isopropanol combined with either CHG or with povidone-iodine. Surgical site preparation protocols for shoulder surgery in men may need to include coverage for anaerobes. Several studies suggest the need to monitor and improve surgical site preparation techniques. Daily bathing of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a CHG-containing soap reduces the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Evidence for a similar effect in non-ICU patients is mixed. Despite widespread CHG bathing of ICU patients, numerous barriers to its effective implementation exist. Measuring CHG levels on the skin is useful for identifying gaps in coverage and suboptimal skin concentrations. Using alcohol-based products with at least 2% CHG for skin preparation prior to central line insertion reduces CLABSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress has been made on skin antisepsis products and protocols, but improvements in technique are still needed.

"Recommendations for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) prevention: the European Knee Associates (EKA)-International Committee American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS)-Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) survey of members"

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a devastating consequence of total joint arthroplasty. The European Knee Associates (EKA), the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) International Committee, and the Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) board members were interested in quantifying differences in arthroplasty surgeons' use of various PJI prevention measures to provide clinical recommendations to reduce PJI incidence.

METHODS

A prospective Microsoft Forms online survey was distributed among EKA, AAHKS International Committee, and ASIA members and their affiliated arthroplasty surgeons. The survey consisted of 20 single and multiple response questions focused on PJI prevention strategies at three perioperative periods: preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-four arthroplasty surgeons from 6 different continents completed the survey. Preoperative: (A) PJI Risk Stratification: 40.6% routinely set thresholds (e.g., BMI, HgbA1C) to be met to qualify for surgery, 36.5% only review past medical history; 9.1% use machine learning to personalize PJI risk; (B) BMI limit: 36% no limit; 15.4% BMI < 35; 30.9% BMI < 40; 17.2% BMI < 45; (C) Nutritional status: 55.3% do not screen; among those who screen their patients (44.7%), albumin is the single most used marker (86.3%); (D) Hyperglycemia/Diabetes: 83.3% check this comorbidity; 88.1% use HgbA1C as single best screening test; (E) MRSA nasal colonization: 63.7% do not test; 28.9% test all patients; 7.4% test selectively. Intraoperative: (A) Antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients: 43.4% use single antibiotic for 24 h; 21.3% use double antibiotic for 24 h; 14.2% use single/double antibiotic for 7 days postoperatively; (B) Skin-cleansing: 68.7% at home (45.6% chlorhexidine sponge; 11.9% clippers); (C) Intraoperative skin disinfection: 46.9% single chlorhexidine; 25% double chlorhexidine-povidone-iodine;15.4% single povidone-iodine; (D) Tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce bleeding/SSI: 96% yes (51% double IV dose, 35.2% single IV dose, 23.6% intra-articular injection); (E) Surgical suction drain: 52% do not use drains; 19.7% use a drain < 24 h; (F) Intra-articular lavage: 64.9% use only saline; 28.1% use dilute povidone-iodine; (G) Antibiotic local delivery to prevent PJI: 82.4% use antibiotic-added cement. Postoperative: (A) Routine monitoring of PJI serologic markers: 42% only in symptomatic patients; 34.2% do not; 20.8% in all patients; (B) Serologic markers to rule in/out PJI: 95.9% CRP; 71% SEDRATE; 60.6% WBC; (C) Synovial fluid test to rule in/out PJI: 79.6% culture/sensitivity; 69.5% WBC count; 31.4% CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrated that notable differences still exist in the application of PJI preventive measures across different geographic areas: Optimizing the patient preoperatively and applying multimodal intraoperative strategies represent newer, clinically relevant steps in the effort to reduce the burden of PJI. More uniform guidelines still need to be produced from international scientific societies in order facilitate a more comprehensive approach to this devastating complication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Evaluation of Incise Drape Lift Using 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate/70% Isopropyl Alcohol Preoperative Skin Preparations in a Human Volunteer Knee Model

Background

Before surgery, skin is prepped with antiseptics to reduce risk of surgical site infections. An incise drape can be used as an additional modality to immobilize any remaining bacteria. Good adhesion of this drape is critical for infection prevention.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled study using a human volunteer knee model (n = 30) to evaluate the adhesion performance of an incise drape comparing 2 skin preparations. A new investigational 2% chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol skin prep (prep A) was compared with an existing skin prep containing the same active agents (prep B). Two samples of an iodine-impregnated incise drape were placed on each knee after prepping. Knees were flexed in dry conditions, under a saline-soaked gauze, and after saline lavage. The frequency of drape lift was recorded after each challenge.

Results

After dry flex, 4 of 60 samples (6.7%) had lifted on prep A and 0 on prep B (P = .125). After wet flex, 20 of 60 samples (33%) had lifted on prep A, whereas 42 of 60 samples (70%) had lifted on prep B (P < .0001). After lavage, 23 of 60 samples (38%) had lifted on prep A, whereas 48 of 60 samples (80%) had lifted on prep B (P < .0001). Both preps were well tolerated with minimal erythema and no edema, rash, dryness, or denudation observed. No adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Prep A resulted in reduced frequency of incise drape lift from skin under wet conditions in this model compared with prep B.

Preoperative Optimization and Tips to Avoiding Surgical Complications Before the Incision

In preparation for surgery, it is important for surgeons to have a detailed discussion with patients about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery. Patient optimization, ensuring the patient is in the best medical condition before surgery, is also an important aspect of patient care that the surgeon must consider. Although complications cannot be eliminated, there are often opportunities to optimize patients, so these risks can be minimized based on current evidence-based medicine. To minimize the risk of complications, the surgeon should take an active role in each step of the patient's care beginning with the history and physical examination, obtaining the correct preoperative labs, and continuing through positioning, draping, and prepping before making an incision.

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis Lineages in the Nasal and Skin Microbiota of Patients Planned for Arthroplasty Surgery

Staphylococcus epidermidis, ubiquitous in the human nasal and skin microbiota, is a common causative microorganism in prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). A high proportion of PJI isolates have been shown to harbor genetic traits associated with resistance to/tolerance of agents used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in joint arthroplasties. These traits were found within multidrug-resistant S. epidermidis (MDRSE) lineages of multiple genetic backgrounds. In this study, the aim was to study whether MDRSE lineages previously associated with PJIs are present in the nasal and skin microbiota of patients planned for arthroplasty surgery but before hospitalization. We cultured samples from nares, inguinal creases, and skin over the hip or knee (dependent on the planned procedure) taken two weeks (median) prior to admittance to the hospital for total joint arthroplasty from 66 patients on agar plates selecting for methicillin resistance. S. epidermidis colonies were identified and tested for the presence of mecA. Methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE) were characterized by Illumina-based whole-genome sequencing. Using this method, we found that 30/66 (45%) of patients were colonized with MRSE at 1–3 body sites. A subset of patients, 10/66 (15%), were colonized with MDRSE lineages associated with PJIs. The qacA gene was identified in MRSE isolates from 19/30 (63%) of MRSE colonized patients, whereas genes associated with aminoglycoside resistance were less common, found in 11/30 (37%). We found that MDRSE lineages previously associated with PJIs were present in a subset of patients’ pre-admission microbiota, plausibly in low relative abundance, and may be selected for by the current prophylaxis regimen comprising whole-body cleansing with chlorhexidine-gluconate containing soap. To further lower the rate of S. epidermidis PJIs, the current prophylaxis may need to be modified, but it is important for possible perioperative MDRSE transmission events and specific risk factors for MDRSE PJIs to be investigated before reevaluating antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Surgical site infection in hip arthroplasty in a 10-year follow-up prospective study: Risk and factors associated

BACKGROUND

The increased demand for hip arthroplasty means a growing number of postsurgical complications. This study aims to assess the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) in a teaching hospital; develop regional, national and international external comparisons; and evaluate SSI-related risk factors, particularly according to the timing of surgery (urgent/unplanned or elective).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study from January 2008 to December 2018. Patients were followed up to 90 days after surgery. Primary endpoint was SSI incidence according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Multivariate analysis was conducted to find independently associated SSI risk factors. The association between risk factors and SSI incidence was assessed by reference to odds ratio (OR). Analyses were also performed among urgent/unplanned and elective patients to identify whether SSI risk factors differed between groups.

RESULTS

The study population (n = 1,808) has an overall SSI rate of 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-3.9). Timing of surgery caused an effect modification, so surgery duration> 75th percentile (OR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.5-9.8) and inadequate preparation (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.0) were independent risk factors in the urgent/unplanned group; National Healthcare Safety Network risk index≥ 2 (OR: 6.3; 95% CI: 0.1-19.2) and transfusion (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.1-11.9) in the elective group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital infection surveillance systems allow identifying risk factors susceptible to change. Characterization of factors that caused an effect modification is key to identify areas of quality improvement, including reducing operating times, preventing perioperative blood transfusion, or improving patient preparation before surgery.

Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.

Use of Antimicrobial-Impregnated Incise Drapes to Prevent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Analysis of 9774 Cases

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes are often used despite any literature that demonstrates a reduction in the rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes with nonantimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes for the prevention of PJI in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A retrospective study of 9774 primary TJAs from 2000 to 2012 was performed. Patients who received an antimicrobial-impregnated incise drape (n = 5241) were compared with patients who received a nonantimicrobial-impregnated incise drape (n = 4533). The decision to use an antimicrobial drape was based on the surgeon's discretion. Patients who developed PJI within 1 year after index surgery were identified. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching were performed to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The overall PJI rate was 1.14% (60 of 5241) for patients who received an antimicrobial-impregnated incise drape compared with 1.26% (57 of 4533) for those with a nonantimicrobial-impregnated incise drape. There was no difference in the PJI rate between patients with an antimicrobial-impregnated incise drape and those who received nonantimicrobial-impregnated incise drape in the univariate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-1.30), multivariate (adjusted OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.34), or propensity score matching analysis (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.52-1.35).

CONCLUSION

Despite the increasing adoption of the use of antimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes in our institute, this study suggests that antimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes do not reduce PJI in patients undergoing primary TJAs.

Does Plastic Incise Drape Prevent Recolonization of Endogenous Skin Flora during Lumbar Spine Procedures?

Background:

The aim of this study was to compare the PID with bare skin (without PID) regarding bacterial recolonization and bacterial regrowth of the adjacent skin of surgical incision in lumbar spine surgery patients.

Methods:

This quasi-experimental study was conducted from February to May 2018 on 88 patients who were candidate for lumbar spine surgery. Patients were assigned to one of two groups, treatment (with PID) and control (without PID). Skin sampling (adjacent of surgical incision) for bacterial culture was done in two steps, immediately after surgical skin prep (IASSP) and immediately after surgical wound closure (IASWC) by researcher. Finally, samples were sent to the laboratory.

Results:

The mean total bacterial count of patient's skin in stage IASSP was not significantly different between treatment and control groups (0.34 vs 0.27, P = 0.68). However, mean total bacterial count in stage IASWC in treatment group was significantly higher than control group (2.2 vs 0.93, P = 0.03). The frequency distribution of S. aureus (P = 0.04) and S. epidermidis (P = 0.02) was significantly higher in treatment group compared with control group in stage IASWC.

Conclusions:

The results showed that using PID is unable to reduce recolonization and regrowth of bacteria on patients’ skin adjacent to surgical wound in clean lumbar spine surgeries. However, making a definite decision about using or not using of PID requires further studies.