Principles of closed surgical wound care

The efficacy of surgical site suction drain insertion in pterional craniotomy for intracranial cerebral aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the role of subgaleal closed suction drains in postoperative epidural hematoma (EDH) and wound complications following pterional craniotomy for cerebral aneurysm.

METHODS

We reviewed 5,280 pterional craniotomies performed on 5,139 patients between January 2006 and December 2020. A drain was placed subgalealy and tip of drain was positioned between the bone flap and the deep temporalis. 1,637 cases (31%) had a subgaleal suction drain. We analyzed demographic and clinical variables related to EDH requiring evacuation and wound complications in patients with and without drains. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the associated risk factors.

RESULTS

Fourteen cases (0.27%) of EDH requiring evacuation and 30 cases (0.57%) of wound complications were identified. Univariate analysis found that drain insertion, subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and operation time were associated with EDH, while drain insertion, SAH, male gender, older age, and longer operation time were associated with wound complications. Multivariate analysis found no significant association between drain use and EDH (OR=1.62, p=0.402) or wound complications (OR=1.45, p=0.342).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of subgaleal closed suction drains may not be necessary after pterional craniotomy, as drain insertion was not associated with a reduced risk of EDH requiring evacuation or wound complications.

Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Hair has traditionally been removed from the surgical site before surgery; however, some studies claim that this increases surgical site infections (SSIs) and should be avoided. This is the second update of a review published in 2006 and first updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether routine preoperative hair removal (compared with no removal) and the method, timing, or setting of hair removal effect SSI rates.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, for this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies plus reviews to identify additional studies. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials that compared: · hair removal with no hair removal; · different methods of hair removal; and · hair removal at different times before surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the relevance of each study. Data were extracted independently by both review authors and cross-checked. We carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at high risk of bias were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new studies in this update resulting in a total of 19 randomised and 6 quasi-randomised trials (8919 participants). Clipping compared with no hair removal Low certainty evidence suggests there may be little difference in risk of SSI when no hair removal is compared with hair removal using clippers (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.39; three studies with 1733 participants). Shaving with a razor compared with no hair removal Moderate certainty evidence suggests the risk of SSI is probably increased in participants who have hair removal with a razor compared with no removal (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.14; seven studies with 1706 participants). In terms of absolute risk this represents 17 more SSIs per 1000 in the razor group compared with the no hair removal group (95% CI 1 more to 45 more SSI in the razor group). Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear whether there is a difference in stitch abscesses between hair removal with a razor and no hair removal (1 trial with 80 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.66). Based on narrative data from one trial with 136 participants, there may be little difference in length of hospital stay between participants having hair removed with a razor compared with those having no hair removal (low-certainty evidence). Based on narrative data from one trial with 278 participants, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in cost between participants having hair removed by shaving with a razor compared with no hair removal (very low certainty evidence). Depilatory cream compared with no hair removal Low certainty evidence suggests there may be little difference in SSI risk between depilatory cream or no hair removal, although there are were wide confidence intervals around the point estimate that included benefit and harm (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.31; low-certainty evidence; 1 trial with 267 participants). Based on narrative data from one trial with 267 participants, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in cost between participants having hair removed with depilatory cream compared with no hair removal (very low certainty evidence). Shaving with a razor compared with clipping Moderate-certainty evidence from 7 studies with 3723 participants suggests the risk of SSI is probably increased by shaving with a razor compared with clipping (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.33). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests the risk of skin injury is probably increased in people who have hair removal with a razor rather than clipping (3 trials with 1333 participants; RR 1.74, CI 95% 1.12 to 2.71). Shaving with a razor compared with depilatory cream Moderate-certainty evidence from 9 studies with 1593 participants suggests there is probably more SSI risk when razors are used compared with depilatory cream (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.65). Low-certainty evidence suggests the risk of skin injury may be increased when using a razor rather than depilatory cream for hair removal (RR 6.95, CI 95% 3.45 to 13.98; 5 trials with 937 participants). Based on narrative data from three trials with 402 participants, it is uncertain whether depilatory cream is more expensive than shaving (very low certainty evidence). Hair removal on the day of surgery compared with one-day preoperatively Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be a small reduction in SSI risk when hair is removed on the day of surgery compared with the day before surgery although there are were wide confidence intervals around the point estimate that included benefit and harm (one trial, 977 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no hair removal, there may be little difference in risk of SSI when clippers or depilatory cream are used (low-certainty evidence). However, there are probably fewer SSIs when hair is not removed compared with shaving with a razor (moderate-certainty evidence). If hair has to be removed, moderate-certainty evidence suggests using clippers or depilatory cream probably results in fewer SSIs and other complications compared with shaving using a razor. There may be a small reduction in SSIs when hair is removed on the day of, rather than the day before, surgery.

Revisiting Perioperative Hair Removal Practices

The standard of practice for perioperative hair removal is largely based on research that is outdated and underpowered. Although there is evidence to support the practice of clipping instead of shaving, current recommendations are to remove hair only when absolutely necessary. Human hair is bacteria-laden and challenging to disinfect, and clipping can be a safe method of hair removal that does not damage the skin. This article considers the removal of hair at the incision site with clippers, either before the patient enters the OR or in a manner that completely contains clipped hair, for every procedure, not just when absolutely necessary. There have been only two studies to date comparing clipping with no hair removal; more research is needed on this subject.

Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour

BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an episiotomy is performed.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine perineal shaving before birth onmaternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (12 June 2014).Selection criteriaAll controlled trials (including quasi-randomised) that compare perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using apredesigned form. Data were checked for accuracy.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials (1039 women) published between 1922 and 2005 fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earliesttrial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving or clipping of vulval hair only. In thesecond trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. In thethird and most recent trial, 500 women were randomly allocated to shaving of perineal area or cutting of perineal hair. The primaryoutcome for all three trials was maternal febrile morbidity; no differences were found (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.73 to 1.76). No differences were found in terms of perineal wound infection (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.70) and perinealwound dehiscence (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00) in the most recent trial involving 500 women, which was the only trial to assessthese outcomes. In the smallest trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had Gram-negative bacterial colonisation compared withwomen who had been shaved (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98). There were no instances of neonatal infection in either group in theone trial that reported this outcome. There were no differences in maternal satisfaction between groups in the larger trial reporting this outcome (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13). No trial reported on perineal trauma. One trial reported on side-effectsand these included irritation, redness, burning and itching.The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low (for the outcomes postpartum maternal febrile morbidity and neonatal infection)to low (for the outcome maternal satisfaction and wound infection).Authors’ conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.

Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Although preparation of people for surgery has traditionally included removal of hair from the incision site, some studies claim that preoperative hair removal is harmful, causes surgical site infections (SSIs), and should be avoided.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if routine pre-operative hair removal (compared with no removal) and the timing or method of hair removal influence rates of SSI..

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 August 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 11, 2010); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 31) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 11August 2011). No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi randomised trials (QRCTs) that compared:1) hair removal with no hair removal; 2) different methods of hair removal; 3) hair removal at different times before surgery; and, 4) hair removal in different settings (e.g. ward, anaesthetic room).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed relevance and quality of each trial. Data were extracted independently by two authors and cross-checked.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (17 comparisons) in the review; three trials involved multiple comparisons. Six trials, two of which had three comparison arms, (972 participants) compared hair removal (shaving, clipping, or depilatory cream) with no hair removal and found no statistically significant difference in SSI rates however the comparison is underpowered. Three trials (1343 participants) that compared shaving with clipping showed significantly more SSIs associated with shaving (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80). Seven trials (1213 participants) found no significant difference in SSI rates when hair removal by shaving was compared with depilatory cream (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.21), however this comparison is also underpowered. One trial compared two groups that shaved or clipped hair on the day of surgery compared with the day before surgery; there was no statistically significant difference in the number of SSIs between groups however this comparison was also underpowered.We identified no trials that compared clipping with depilatory cream; or investigated application of depilatory cream at different pre-operative time points, or hair removal in different settings (e.g. ward, anaesthetic room).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whilst this review found no statistically significant effect on SSI rates of hair removal insufficient numbers of people have been involved in this research to allow confidence in a conclusion. When it is necessary to remove hair, the existing evidence suggests that clippers are associated with fewer SSIs than razors. There was no significant difference in SSI rates between depilatory creams and shaving, or between shaving or clipping the day before surgery or on the day of surgery however studies were small and more research is needed.

Impact of a standardized protocol and antibiotic-impregnated catheters on ventriculostomy infection rates in cerebrovascular patients

BACKGROUND

Ventriculostomy infections create significant morbidity. To reduce infection rates, a standardized evidence-based catheter insertion protocol was implemented. A prospective observational study analyzed the effects of this protocol alone and with antibiotic-impregnated ventriculostomy catheters.

OBJECTIVE

To compare infection rates after implementing a standardized protocol for ventriculostomy catheter insertion with and without the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2008, 1961 ventriculostomies and infections were documented. A ventriculostomy infection was defined as 2 positive CSF cultures from ventriculostomy catheters with a concurrent increase in cerebrospinal fluid white blood cell count. A baseline (preprotocol) infection rate was established (period 1). Infection rates were monitored after adoption of the standardized protocol (period 2), institution of antibiotic-impregnated catheter A (period 3), discontinuation of antibiotic-impregnated catheter A (period 4), and institution of antibiotic-impregnated catheter B (period 5).

RESULTS

The baseline infection rate (period 1) was 6.7% (22/327 devices). Standardized protocol (period 2) implementation did not change the infection rate (8.2%; 23/281 devices). Introduction of catheter A (period 3) reduced infections to 1.0% (2/195 devices, P=.0005). Because of technical difficulties, this catheter was discontinued (period 4), resulting in an increase in infection rate (7.6%; 12/157 devices). Catheter B (period 5) significantly decreased infections to 0.9% (9 of 1001 devices, P=.0001). The Staphylococcus infection rate for periods 1, 2, and 4 was 6.1% (47/765) compared with 0.2% (1/577) during use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters (periods 3 and 5).

CONCLUSION

The use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters resulted in a significant reduction of ventriculostomy infections and is recommended in the adult neurosurgical population.

Postoperative infections: prevention and management

Postoperative infections continue to be a challenging problem. The incidence of bacterial antibiotic resistance such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is rising. There are numerous intrinsic patient factors that should be optimized before surgery to minimize the risk of surgical site infections. When postoperative infections develop, treatment must be individualized. This article outlines the principles that can help guide treatment.

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.

Preoperative hair removal: a systematic review

Preparing patients for surgery has traditionally included the routine removal of body hair from the intended surgical wound site. However, there are studies which claim that preoperative hair removal is deleterious to patients, perhaps by causing surgical site infections (SSIs), and should not be carried out. The objective of this review was to determine if routine preoperative hair removal results in fewer SSIs than not removing hair. Eleven randomised controlled trials were included in this review. There is insufficient evidence to state whether removing hair impacts on surgical site infection or when is the best time to remove hair. However, if it is necessary to remove hair then both clipping and depilatory creams results in fewer SSIs than shaving using a razor.

Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

The preparation of people for surgery has traditionally included the routine removal of body hair from the intended surgical wound site. However, there are studies which claim that pre-operative hair removal is deleterious to patients, perhaps by causing surgical site infections (SSIs), and should not be carried out.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine if routine pre-operative hair removal results in fewer SSIs than not removing hair.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (October 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1980 to 2005), CINAHL (1982 to 2005), and the ZETOC database of conference proceedings (1993 to 2005). We also contacted manufacturers of hair removal products.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hair removal with no hair removal, different methods of hair removal, hair removal conducted at different times prior to surgery and hair removal carried out in different settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Data was extracted independently by one author and cross checked for accuracy by a second author.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included in this review. Three trials involving 625 people compared hair removal using either depilatory cream or razors with no hair removal and found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of surgical site infections. No trials were identified which compared clipping with no hair removal. Three trials involving 3193 people compared shaving with clipping and found that there were statistically significantly more SSIs when people were shaved rather than clipped (RR 2.02, 95%CI 1.21 to 3.36). Seven trials involving 1420 people compared shaving with removing hair using a depilatory cream but found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in SSI rates. No trials were found that compared clipping with a depilatory cream.One trial involving 537 people compared shaving on the day of surgery with shaving the day before surgery and one trial compared clipping on the day of surgery with clipping the day before surgery; neither trial found a statistically significant difference in the number of SSIs. No trials were found that compared depilatory cream at different times or that compared hair removal in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence finds no difference in SSIs among patients who have had hair removed prior to surgery and those who have not. If it is necessary to remove hair then clipping results in fewer SSIs than shaving using a razor. There is insufficient evidence regarding depilatory cream compared with shaving using a razor. There is no difference in SSIs when patients are shaved or clipped one day before surgery or on the day of surgery.

Razors versus clippers. A randomised controlled trial

The purpose of this randomised controlled trial was to determine if patients showed a preference for preoperative hair removal with razors or clippers and to identify if one method was associated with more trauma or postoperative infections. The trial took place in a day surgery unit with patients who were having a range of surgical procedures including hernias and varicose veins. This study was sponsored by an award from the NATN/3M Clinical Fellowship.

Surgical wound benchmark tool and best practice guidelines

Surgical wounds that heal by primary intention are expected to heal without complication (Watret and White, 2001). Patients are frequently subjected to a variety of treatment regimens, often based on individual practitioners' preferences. This article discusses how one acute hospital trust developed a multidisciplinary approach to devise best practice guidelines. This was achieved through consensus and expertise of a working party, and a clinical practice benchmark tool for patients with surgical wounds to standardize and ensure the implementation of evidence-based practice. Clinical practice benchmarking is "a process through which best practice is identified and continuous improvement pursued though comparison and sharing" (Department of Health (DoH), 1999). The work has led to the development of a standardized assessment and documentation tool, which the working party hopes will be used trust-wide. In addition, ward staff are encouraged to undertake the benchmark process as a method of identifying areas where the use of this tool would ensure that standards of care could be improved.

The management of a pilonidal sinus and its follow-up care

This article describes the care of a young man following surgery for a pilonidal sinus and the follow-up care after removal of the sutures from the wound. Unfortunately, the wound became infected and dehisced on removal of the sutures, causing the patient to have problems with both wound healing and body image.

Management of a patient with postoperative necrotizing fasciitis

This case study highlights the care of a diabetic woman who had previously undergone elective surgery for a hernia repair, and who later presented with necrotizing fasciitis. The need for a flexible approach to dressing choice is emphasized in terms of patient comfort and ease of management in the community.

Can wounds be left uncovered 48 hours after surgery?

The editor welcomes readers' questions and alternative answers to questions and letters.These should be sent to the Journal of Wound Care, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London NW1 7EJ. Fax: +44 (0)20-7874 0386. Email: jwc@emap.com

Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour

BACKGROUND

Pubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perineal tear or if an episiotomy is performed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of routine perineal shaving on admission in labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The register of clinical trials maintained and updated by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. In addition, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was searched. Date of last search: July 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials (including quasi randomised) which compared perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion, without consideration of their results.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two trials fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earlier trial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving (control) or clipping of vulval hair only (experimental). In the second trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. The primary outcome for both trials was maternal febrile morbidity. No differences were found (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 2.12). In the smaller trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had gram negative bacterial colonisation compared with women who had been shaved (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20, 0.92).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.

Antiseptic skin preparation revisited

Preparing the operation site by painting a solution of something onto the skin is one of the best preserved rituals in surgery. There appears to be something really satisfying about this precursor to the main event, and if the solution used is brightly coloured, or stains the skin, then so much the better--you can actually see where you've been! I hope than no-one is under the illusion that because the whole leg (or arm, or abdomen or anywhere else) is now a sickly shade of brown or alarmingly pink, that no pathogenic organisms can possibly have survived the onslaught. In this comprehensive review of the literature and practice audit, Sally Kent revisits the reasons for skin preparation, and recommends the use of well proven research to determine correct practice.