Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intra‐operative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012653Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 08 mayo 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Overview
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Heridas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Jo C Dumville

    Correspondencia a: Division of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

    [email protected]

  • Gill Norman

    Division of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

  • Maggie J Westby

    Division of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

  • Jane Blazeby

    NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, School of Social & Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Emma McFarlane

    Centre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK

  • Nicky J Welton

    School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Louise O'Connor

    Infection Prevention & Control / Tissue Viability Team, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

  • Julie Cawthorne

    Infection Prevention & Control / Tissue Viability Team, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

  • Ryan P George

    Infection Prevention & Control / Tissue Viability Team, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

  • Zhenmi Liu

    Division of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK

  • Emma J Crosbie

    Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Contributions of authors

All authors approved the protocol prior to submission.

Jo Dumville: secured funding, conceived the review question, developed the protocol and co‐ordinated its development, wrote the protocol edited and advised on the protocol, and is a guarantor of the protocol.

Gill Norman: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Maggie Westby: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Jane Blazeby: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Emma McFarlane: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Nicola Welton: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Louise O'Connor: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Julie Cawthorne: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Ryan P George: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Zhenmi Liu: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Emma Crosbie: edited and advised on the protocol, made an intellectual contribution to the protocol.

Contributions of the editorial base:

Nicky Cullum (Editor): edited the protocol; advised on methodology, interpretation and protocol content; approved the final protocol prior to submission.

Gill Rizzello (Managing Editor): co‐ordinated the editorial process; advised on content; edited the protocol.

Ursula Gonthier (Editorial Assistant): edited the reference section.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences University of Manchester, UK.

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure and Cochrane Programme Grant funding (NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant 13/89/08 – High Priority Cochrane Reviews in Wound Prevention and Treatment) to Cochrane Wounds. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Fellowships, UK.

  • National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) Greater Manchester Centre, UK.

    Jo Dumville was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) Greater Manchester. The funder had no role in the design of the studies, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. However, the review may be considered to be affiliated to the work of the NIHR CLAHRC Greater Manchester. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health.

Declarations of interest

Jo Dumville: I receive research funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK for the production of systematic reviews focusing on high priority Cochrane reviews in the prevention and treatment of wounds.

Gill Norman: my employment at the University of Manchester is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK and focuses on high priority Cochrane reviews in the prevention and treatment of wounds.

Maggie Westby: my employment at the University of Manchester is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK and focuses on high priority Cochrane reviews in the prevention and treatment of wounds.

Jane Blazeby: none known.

Emma McFarlane: none known.

Nicola Welton: I have received research grants from the NIHR and the MRC. Pfizer part‐fund a junior researcher working on a methodology project using historical data in a clinical area unrelated to this project. I have received honoraria from ABPI for delivering masterclasses on evidence synthesis. I have delivered a short‐course on network meta‐analysis to ICON plc, the funds from which were paid to my institution.

Louise O'Connor: none known.

Julie Cawthorne: none known.

Ryan P George: none known.

Zhenmi Liu: my employment at the University of Manchester is supported by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (NIHR Systematic Review Fellowships).

Emma Crosbie: I am a Scientific Editor for BJOG. I have received funding from an NIHR Clinician Scientist Award, the HTA, Wellbeing of Women/the Wellcome Trust and Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I am an employee of the University of Manchester.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank peer reviewers Lawrence Best, Janet Whale, Gill Worthy, Kurinchi Gurusamy and Ros Wade and copy editor Ann Jones.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Feb 06

Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Review

Zhenmi Liu, Jo C Dumville, Gill Norman, Maggie J Westby, Jane Blazeby, Emma McFarlane, Nicky J Welton, Louise O'Connor, Julie Cawthorne, Ryan P George, Emma J Crosbie, Amber D Rithalia, Hung‐Yuan Cheng

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012653.pub2

2017 May 08

Intra‐operative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane reviews

Protocol

Jo C Dumville, Gill Norman, Maggie J Westby, Jane Blazeby, Emma McFarlane, Nicky J Welton, Louise O'Connor, Julie Cawthorne, Ryan P George, Zhenmi Liu, Emma J Crosbie

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012653

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

Table 1. Interventions aimed at preventing surgical site infections

Intervention

Details

Theories on how the intervention type might work

Intra‐operative intervention types

Decontamination of patients' skin at site of surgery incision
(for the patient)

Before surgery, patients' skin is disinfected using antiseptic solutions such as povidine‐iodine or chlorhexidine at varying concentrations.

The aim of preoperative skin antisepsis is to reduce the risk of SSIs by reducing the number of microorganisms on the skin (ACORN 2012; Mangram 1999).

Skin sealants
(for the patient)

Microbial sealants are liquids that are applied to the patient's skin before surgery and left to dry forming a protective film over the planned incision site. Cyanoacrylate, which is also used as a tissue adhesive, can be used as a skin sealant.

As with other barrier methods, the use of skin sealants is focused on preventing contamination of the surgical wound with micro‐organisms from the patient's skin. It is proposed that skin sealant use before surgery prevents any remaining micro‐organisms from migrating into the surgical wound following skin decontamination (Singer 2008).

Incise drapes
(for the patient)

Before a surgical incision is made, sterile plastic adhesive (incise) drapes can be placed onto cleansed skin. The surgical incision is then made through the drape. Drapes can be plain or impregnated with antimicrobial products.

Drapes are used as a barrier between the incision and the patient's skin, which although cleansed, may harbour micro‐organisms, such as at deeper levels of the skin that cleansing cannot reach (Swenson 2008).

Use of masks, hair covers, overshoes, gowns and other protective coverings for theatre staff
(for staff)

Protective coverings worn in theatre by staff to limit the movement of micro‐organisms in theatre (Cooper 2003).

For example: masks over the face; disposable shoe covers worn over standard footwear and changed as required; disposable or re‐usable gowns worn over standard scrub outfits and changed as required.

There are various coverings used in surgery that are designed to act as a barrier between the environment and the patient's wound to maintain a sterile operative field, such as masks that aim to capture water droplets being expelled. Masks contain one or two very finely woven filters that can inhibit bacteria. Masks cover the nose and mouth, but there is concern that masks may be worn incorrectly and allow air leaks from the sides of the mask.

Shoe coverings aim to limit the transfer of external material in and out of theatres.

Gowns cover standard surgical attire and can be removed when contaminated and replaced.

Different glove protocols
(for staff)

Surgical staff wear disposable gloves during surgery. Gloves are used in a number of ways intended to minimise microbial contamination from staff to patients, including double gloving (using two pairs of gloves), the use of glove liners or cloth outer gloves (Kovavisarach 2002; Laine 2004).

Gloves are a barrier intervention that aim to prevent transfer of micro‐organisms from the staff member's skin to the patient's skin or wound. Gloves also act as a barrier to prevent staff from infection by patients.

Use of electrosurgery for surgical incisions
(for the patient)

In electrosurgery, an electric current is used to generate heat which vaporises cellular material, cutting the skin in place of a scalpel. This can be used to cut skin from the top surface down or used on deep skin layers once an incision has been made with a scalpel (Soderstrom 2003).

It has been suggested that using heat to make a surgical incision may reduce the risk of SSI.

Maintaining patient homoeostasis (warming)
(for the patient)

During surgery the patient's bodily functions need to be optimised to promote recovery; it is further postulated this may also reduce the risk of SSI. Under general anaesthetic it is harder for the body to regulate its own temperature and this can increase the risk of peri‐operative hypothermia. Warming can be achieved using thermal insulation such as blankets, or active methods of warming that use machines to transfer heat to the patient, and use of heated intravenous fluids (NICE 2016; Whitney 2015).

Undertaking warming aims to maintain body temperature and prevent the development of peri‐operative hypothermia which can lead to negative postoperative outcomes, which potentially include SSI. These interventions can also be used postoperatively to mitigate the impact of peri‐operative hypothermia when it has not been prevented.

Maintaining patient homoeostasis (oxygenation)
(for the patient)

During surgery under general anaesthetic patients are intubated and supplied with oxygen to maintain adequate oxygen perfusion to all tissues.

It is suggested that the risk of SSI is higher when tissue oxygenation is not optimised during surgery. Some surgical protocols use higher saturation levels of oxygen during intubation to increase tissue oxygenation levels with the aim of reducing wound complications such as SSI. High oxygen levels have been linked to serious adverse events such as blindness and death (Al‐Niaimi 2009).

Maintaining patient homoeostasis (blood glucose control)
(for the patient)

Use of strict glycaemic control using medications to maintain glucose levels during surgery.

Hyperglycaemia after surgery is postulated to lead to increased risk of surgical complications including infection (Ljungqvist 2005; Stephan 2002).

Wound irrigation and intracavity lavage (including use of intra‐operative topical antiseptics before wound closure)
(for the patient)

Surgical irrigation and intracavity lavage use fluids to wash out the surgical cavity at the end of the surgical procedure before the wound is closed. Both wound irrigation and intracavity lavage can be altered by: volume of irrigation fluid; mechanism or timing of delivery; or solution composition (Barnes 2014).

The theoretical advantage of surgical wound irrigation is to reduce the bacterial load in a surgical wound, and thus the risk of SSI, through a combination of water pressure, dilution, or the application of antimicrobial agents.

Closure methods
(for the patient)

Surgical wounds can be closed using sutures (absorbable or not) staples, adhesive strips or tissue adhesives. Some closure methods can make use of sutures that are coated in antimicrobial products.

The timing of closure can also vary; some wounds can be left open for a period following surgery and then closed (delayed closure).

There is a view that the method of surgical wound closure may impact on SSI risk. There is limited background evidence on mechanisms for SSI prevention, although it has been suggested that the better the seal the closure method obtains, the better the barrier to microbial contamination (Gurusamy 2014).

Theatre cleansing
(for the environment)

The theatre environment needs to be cleaned regularly with detergents to disinfect surfaces. Daily deep cleaning is likely to occur using various protocols for cleaning surfaces between patient surgeries, especially areas that are contaminated with bodily fluid, or that are frequently touched by staff. Recent technologies used for theatre cleansing include UVC light decontamination and hydrogen peroxide vapour treatment.

Surgical instruments are also sterilised to decontaminate them after use. Various protocols are used including steam sterilisation and chemical sterilisation, which is used when steam sterilisation is not feasible.

Theatre cleaning can also involve the use of ventilation systems, such as laminar airflow systems, which supply filtered air into the environment to limit numbers of airborne micro‐organisms.

To avoid cross‐infection, special protocols may be developed for cleansing when surgical patients are known to have specific infections.

All aspects of theatre cleansing aim to minimise numbers of micro‐organisms present in the theatre environment with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI. (Spagnolo 2013).

Theatre traffic
(for the environment)

A surgical theatre can be a busy working environment with people moving in and out. This movement can be managed, for example limiting the entrance and exit of staff during surgery, and minimising visitors into the theatre (e.g. partners of women undergoing caesarean sections) (Spagnolo 2013).

A key aim in the prevention of SSI is to limit numbers of micro‐organisms in the operative environment. People moving in and out of the operative field may increase the risk of contamination. Visitors to the theatre who have not undergone full hand scrubbing protocols and so forth could also potentially increase SSI risk.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Interventions aimed at preventing surgical site infections
Table 2. Example overview of review summary of findings table

Interventions for [condition] in [population]

Outcome

Intervention and Comparison intervention

Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Number of participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

With comparator

With intervention

Outcome #1

Intervention/comparison #1

Intervention/comparison #2

Outcome #2

Intervention/comparison #1

Intervention/comparison #2

Outcome #3

Intervention/Comparison #1

Intervention/Comparison #2

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Example overview of review summary of findings table