Implementation of an abdominal closure bundle to reduce surgical site infection in patients on a gynecologic oncology service undergoing exploratory laparotomy

Surgical site infection prevention bundle in gynecology oncology surgery: a key element in the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program

Surgical site infection rates are among 5-35% in all gynecologic oncology procedures. Such infections lead to increased patient morbidity, reduction in quality of life, higher likelihood of readmissions, and reinterventions, which contribute directly to mortality and increase in health-related costs. Some of these are potentially preventable by applying evidence-based strategies in the peri-operative patient setting. The objective of this review is to provide recommendations for the individual components that most commonly comprise the surgical site infection prevention bundles that could be implemented in gynecologic oncology procedures. We searched articles from relevant publications with specific topics related to each surgical site infection intervention chosen to be reviewed. Studies on each topic were selected with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized control studies, non-randomized controlled studies, reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and case series. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. This review intends to serve as the most up-to-date frame of evidence-based peri-operative care in our specialty and could serve as the first initiative to introduce an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

Implementation of a surgical site infection prevention bundle in gynecologic oncology patients: An enhanced recovery after surgery initiative

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes pre- and post-implementation of an evidence-informed surgical site infection prevention bundle (SSIPB) in gynecologic oncology patients within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care pathway.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparotomy for a gynecologic oncology surgery between January-June 2017 (pre-SSIPB) and between January 2018-December 2020 (post-SSIPB) were compared using t-tests and chi-square. Patient characteristics, surgical factors, and ERAS process measures and outcomes were abstracted from the ERAS® Interactive Audit System (EIAS). The primary outcomes were incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) during post-operative hospital admission and at 30-days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative infections, length of stay, and any surgical complications. Multivariate models were used to adjust for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Patient and surgical characteristics were similar in the pre- and post-implementation periods. Evaluation of implementation suggested that preoperative and intraoperative components of the intervention were most consistently used. Infectious complications within 30 days of surgery decreased from 42.1% to 24.4% after implementation of the SSIPB (p < 0.001), including reductions in wound infections (17.0% to 10.8%, p = 0.02), urinary tract infections (UTI) (12.7% to 4.5%, p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal abscesses (5.4% to 2.5%, p = 0.05). These reductions were associated with a decrease in median length of stay from 3 to 2 days (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, these SSI reductions remained statistically significant after adjustment for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of SSIPB was associated with a reduction in SSIs and infectious complications, as well as a shorter length of stay in gynecologic oncology patients.

Extended-duration antibiotics are not associated with a reduction in surgical site infection in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing cytoreductive surgery with large bowel resection

OBJECTIVE(S)

To evaluate whether extended dosing of antibiotics (ABX) after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with large bowel resection for advanced ovarian cancer is associated with reduced incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) compared to standard intra-operative dosing and evaluate predictors of SSI.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution cohort study was performed in patients with stage III/IV ovarian cancer who underwent CRS from 2009 to 2017. Patients were divided into two cohorts: 1) standard intra-operative dosing ABX and 2) extended post-operative ABX. All ABX dosing was at the surgeon's discretion. The impact of antibiotic duration on SSI and other postoperative outcomes was assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 277 patients underwent cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with large bowel resection between 2009 and 2017. Forty-nine percent (n = 137) received standard intra-operative ABX and 50.5% (n = 140) received extended post-operative ABX. Rectosigmoid resection was the most common large bowel resection in the standard ABX (89.9%, n = 124) and extended ABX groups (90.0%, n = 126), respectively. No significant differences existed between age, BMI, hereditary predisposition, or medical comorbidities (p > 0.05). No difference was appreciated in the development of superficial incisional SSI between the standard ABX and extended ABX cohorts (10.9% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.62). Of patients who underwent a transverse colectomy, a larger percentage of patients developed a superficial SSI versus no SSI (21% vs. 6%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION(S)

In this retrospective study of patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing CRS with LBR, extended post-operative ABX was not associated with reduced SSI, and prolonged administration of antibiotics should be avoided unless clinically indicated.

Less is more: Abdominal closure protocol does not reduce surgical site infection after hysterectomy

OBJECTIVES

To determine rates of surgical site infection (SSI) with and without an abdominal closure protocol for gynecologic oncology patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were identified using CPT codes who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy by gynecologic oncologists at a tertiary care center from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019, and stratified by use of the abdominal closure protocol. Demographic, perioperative, and pathologic variables were collected. Fisher's exact and Chi squared tests were used for categorical variables, logistic regression and student t-tests for continuous variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to analyze the relationships between these variables, use of the closure protocol, and development of SSI.

RESULTS

739 patients were included over the study period (n = 393 pre-implementation, n = 346 post-implementation of the abdominal closure protocol,). Baseline demographics including ASA score, BMI, diabetes, and smoking were similar between these groups (P = 0.14-0.94). The rate of SSI within 30 days was 5.9% (23/393) in the pre-protocol group and 8.1% (28/346) under the abdominal closure protocol (P = 0.25). On univariate analysis, factors associated with SSI were BMI >40, diabetes, bowel resection, ASA score 3 or 4, hypertension, and contaminated wound class (uOR 2.31-4.09). On multivariate analysis BMI >40, diabetes, and bowel resection remained independent risk factors (aOR 2.27-2.99), with the closure protocol not achieving significance (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 0.79-2.59). There were no potentially high-risk sub-groups in whom the closing protocol showed benefit.

CONCLUSION

The abdominal closure protocol in isolation did not decrease SSI in those undergoing TAH by a gynecologic oncologist.

Decreased incidence of cesarean surgical site infection rate with hospital-wide perioperative bundle

BACKGROUND

Reduction in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) serves as a measure of patient safety and quality improvement. Cesarean birth (CB) accounts for 31.9% of all childbirths in the United States. However, our understanding of SSI prevention bundles predominantly stems from gynecological and colorectal surgeries. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a standardized perioperative bundle designed to reduce SSI in CBs.

METHODS

All CB patients at Flushing Hospital Medical Center from 2017 to 2019 were included in a retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into three groups based on the timing of intervention: prebundle/control, transition, and postbundle. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the association between bundle group and SSI, considering variables different between groups at baseline (P < 0.10).

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred and seventy-five CBs were performed: 1086 in prebundle, 812 in transition, and 977 in postbundle phase. In the prebundle phase, 25 CBs (2.3%) were complicated by SSIs; in the transition phase, 10 (1.2%) had SSIs; and in the postbundle phase, 7 (0.7%; P = 0.009) had SSIs. In a logistic regression model, only use of the CB bundle (OR 0.26 [95% CI 0.07-0.94]; P = 0.04), rupture of membranes (0.29 [0.09-0.87]; P = 0.03), and operating room time (1.02 [1.01-1.04]; P = 0.01) were significant in prediction of SSI. SSI postbundle was significantly reduced from prebundle (0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, introduction of a hospital-wide perioperative bundle significantly reduced SSI rates, and should be developed as a mainstay of CB surgical care.

Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Wound management Following Midline Laparotomy in Gynecological Oncology Operations: A Feasibility Pilot Study

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality in healthcare. Increasingly, closed-incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) is being studied as a potential method of reducing incidence of SSI with conflicting results in the literature. Few studies however have looked at its use in the field of gynecological oncology.

Objectives

We aimed to compare the incidence of SSI when using ciNPWT dressings versus conventional dressings in gynecological oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomies.

Methods

This was a pilot study involving 14 patients receiving the ciNPWT dressing and 26 control patients. All patients were followed up for a period of 30 days. We used the American College of Surgeons (ACS) risk calculator to estimate each patient’s risk of SSI in order to risk stratify the groups.

Results

The incidence of wound infection was 21% (3/14) in the ciNPWT group and 23% (6/26) in the control group (p=0.886). The ciNPWT group was found to be at significantly higher risk for SSI as calculated by the ACS tool (8.8% ciNPWT, 6% control, p=0.004). After stratifying for this difference in risk, still no significant difference in incidence of SSI was found between the two groups (27% (3/11) ciNPWT, 29% (2/7) control p=0.929).

Conclusion

The incidence of SSI does not appear to decrease by the prophylactic use of the closed-incision negative pressure wound dressing. 

Use of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure therapy is associated with reduced surgical site infections in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection after surgery for gynecologic cancer increases morbidity. Prophylactic closed incision negative pressure therapy has shown promise in reducing infectious wound complications across many surgical disciplines.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether closed incision negative pressure therapy is associated with reduced surgical site infections in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy compared with standard dressings.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients undergoing laparotomy for known or suspected gynecologic cancer from Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 1, 2020. Patients were matched in a 1:3 ratio (closed incision negative pressure therapy to standard dressing) by body mass index, age, diabetes, bowel surgery, smoking, and steroid use. Surgical site infection was defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multivariable logistic regression using backward selection was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1223 eligible patients undergoing laparotomy, 64 (5.2%) received closed incision negative pressure therapy dressings and were matched to 192 (15.7%) controls. There were no differences in medical comorbidities (P>.05), site or stage of malignancy (P>.05), duration of surgery (P=.82), or surgical procedures (P>.05). Use of closed incision negative pressure therapy was associated with reduction in all adverse wound outcomes (20.3% vs 40.1%; P<.001). In particular, closed incision negative pressure therapy was associated with a significant reduction in both superficial incisional surgical site infections (9.4% vs 29.7%; P<.001) and deep incisional surgical site infections (0.0% vs 6.8%; P=.04). In multivariable analysis, use of closed incision negative pressure therapy was associated with significant reduction in the incidence of superficial incisional infections alone (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.73; P=.008) and both superficial and deep incisional infections (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.71; P=.007).

CONCLUSION

Use of prophylactic closed incision negative pressure therapy after laparotomy in gynecologic oncology patients was found to be associated with reduced superficial incisional and deep incisional infections compared with standard dressings. Furthermore, closed incision negative pressure therapy was associated with reduction in all other adverse wound outcomes. Closed incision negative pressure therapy may be considered for surgical site infection prevention in high-risk gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy.

Colon and rectal surgery surgical site infection reduction bundle: To improve is to change

BACKGROUND

Despite the introduction of the Surgical Care Improvement Project, surgical site infections remain a source of morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the value of implementing a colorectal bundle on SSI rates.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2016 a total of 1351 patients underwent colorectal operations. Patients were grouped into pre-implementation (Group A, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2012), implementation (Group B, January 1, 2013-December 31, 2014) and post-implementation (Group C, January 1, 2015-December 31, 2016). Primary endpoints were superficial SSI, deep SSI, wound separation and total SSI.

RESULTS

After the bundle was implemented, there was a significant reduction in superficial (6.6%-4%, p < 0.05), deep (3.7%-1.1%, p < 0.05), and total SSI rates (10.9%-4.7%, p < 0.05). Comparing Group A to Group C there was a decrease in total SSI (9.4%-4.7%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the bundle resulted in a reduction in overall SSI rates particularly as compliance increased. This study offers evidence that small changes can lead to significant decreases in surgical site infections.