Translation and validation of the Greek version of the “ASEPSIS” scoring method for orthopaedic wound infections

Wound drainage measurements: a narrative review

Drainage from chronic wounds can significantly negatively impact a patient's quality of life. Change in severity of wound drainage is an important measure of treatment efficacy for wounds. This study reviews existing tools used to assess wound drainage. Qualitative drainage tools are overall less burdensome, and however, differences in user interpretation may reduce inter-rater reliability. Quantitative drainage tools enable more reliable comparisons of drainage severity and treatment response between patients but sometimes require equipment to administer, increasing responder burden. Gaps in the current wound drainage measurement landscape are highlighted. Many of the existing scales have not been validated in robust studies. There is also a lack of validated global drainage measurement tools for patients with chronic inflammatory skin disorders with drainage, such as hidradenitis suppurativa or pyoderma gangrenosum. Development of a succinct drainage measurement tool for inflammatory skin diseases where drainage is a prominent symptom will improve monitoring of meaningful treatment response.

Inter-rater agreement of CDC criteria and ASEPSIS score in assessing surgical site infections after cesarean section: a prospective observational study

Objective

To assess and compare the inter-rater agreement of the CDC criteria and the ASEPSIS score in identifying surgical site infections after cesarean section.

Methods

Prospective observational study including 110 patients subjected to a cesarean section at our institution. Surgical wounds were managed according to standard care and were photographed on the third, seventh, and thirtieth postoperative day or during any evaluation in case of complications. Three expert surgeons reviewed the prospectively gathered data and photographs and classified each wound using CDC criteria and the ASEPSIS score. The inter-rater agreements of CDC criteria and ASEPSIS score were determined with Krippendorff's Alpha with linear weights and compared with a confidence interval approach.

Results

The weighted α coefficient for CDC criteria was 0.587 (95%CI, 0.411-0.763, p < 0.001, "moderate" agreement according to Altman's interpretation of weighted agreement coefficient), while the weighted α coefficient for the ASEPSIS score was 0.856 (95%CI, 0.733-0.980, p < 0.001, "very good" agreement).

Conclusion

ASEPSIS score presents a "very good" inter-rater agreement for surgical site infections identification after cesarean, resulting in a more objective method than CDC criteria ("moderate" inter-rater agreement). ASEPSIS score could represent an objective tool for managing and monitoring surgical site infections after cesarean section, also by photographic evaluation.