Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

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

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Referencias

Additional references

ACORN 2012

Australian College of Operating Room Nurses (ACORN). Standards for Perioperative Nursing. 14th Edition. Adelaide, Australia: ACORN, 2012.

Al‐Niaimi 2009

Al‐Niaimi A, Safdar N. Supplemental perioperative oxygen for reducing surgical site infection: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2009;15(2):360‐5.

Allegranzi 2010

Allegranzi B, Nejad SB, Combescure C, Graafmans W, Attar H, Donaldson L, et al. Burden of endemic health‐care‐associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet 2010;377(9761):228‐41.

Allegranzi 2016a

Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, de Jonge S, Kubilay NZ, Zayed B, Gomes SM, et al. WHO Guidelines Development Group. New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence‐based global perspective. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2016;16(12):e276‐87.

Allegranzi 2016b

Allegranzi B, Zayed B, Bischoff P, Kubilay NZ, de Jonge S, de Vries F, et al. WHO Guidelines Development Group. New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence‐based global perspective. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2016;16(12):e288‐303.

ASA 2017

American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). ASA Physical Status Classification System. https://www.asahq.org/resources/clinical‐information/asa‐physical‐status‐classification‐system Accessed 2nd May 2017.

Astagneau 2009

Astagneau P, L'Hériteau F, Daniel F, Parneix P, Venier AG, Malavaud S, et al. Reducing surgical site infection incidence through a network: results from the French ISO‐RAISIN surveillance system. Journal of Hospital Infection 2009;72(2):127‐34.

Awad 2012

Awad SS. Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and post‐operative surgical site infections. Surgical Infections 2012;13(2):234‐7.

Barnes 2014

Barnes S, Spencer M, Graham D, Johnson HB. Surgical wound irrigation: a call for evidence‐based standardization of practice. American Journal of Infection Control 2014;42(5):525‐9.

Becker 2011

Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Brown 2014

Brown B, Tanner J, Padley W. This wound has spoiled everything: emotional capital and the experience of surgical site infections. Sociology of Health and Illness 2014;36(8):1171‐87.

Bruce 2001

Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH. The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technology Assessment 2001;5(22):1‐194.

CDC 2017

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surgical site infection (SSI) event. Procedure‐associated module. January 2017. www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf (accessed 20 January 2017).

Cooper 2003

Cooper BS, Stone SP, Kibbler CC, Cookson BD, Roberts JA, Medley GF, et al. Systematic review of isolation policies in the hospital management of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review of the literature with epidemiological and economic modelling. Health Technology Assessment 2003;7(39):1‐194.

De Lissovoy 2009

De Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, Murphy D, Song D, Vaughn BB. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. American Journal of Infection Control 2009;37(5):387‐97.

Dumville 2016

Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, Sharp CA, Page T, Macefield R, et al. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003091.pub4]

ECDC 2013

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Point prevalence survey of healthcare associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals 2011‐2012. ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publications/healthcare‐associated‐infections‐antimicrobial‐use‐pps.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

Gaynes 2001

Gaynes RP, Culver DH, Horan TC, Edwards JR, Richards C, Tolson JS. Surgical site infection (SSI) rates in the United States, 1992‐1998: the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System basic SSI risk index. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2001;33(Suppl 2):S69‐77.

Gibbons 2011

Gibbons C, Bruce J, Carpenter J, Wilson AP, Wilson J, Pearson A, et al. Identification of risk factors by systematic review and development of risk‐adjusted models for surgical site infection. Health Technology Assessment 2011;15(30):1‐156.

Goodman 2016

Goodman T, Spry C. Introduction to perioperative nursing. Essentials of Periopertive Nursing. Sixth. Boston, US: Jones and Barlett Nursing, March 2016.

GRADE 2013

Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, GRADE working group. GRADE handbook. gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/central_prod/_design/client/handbook/handbook.html (accessed 5 February 2016).

Gurusamy 2014

Gurusamy KS, Toon CD, Allen VB, Davidson BR. Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non‐obstetric surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010365.pub2]

Guyatt 2011

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brożek J, Alonso‐Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence: imprecision. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1283–93.

Hardin 1997

Hardin W, Nichols R. Handwashing and patient skin preparation. In: Malangoni MA editor(s). Critical Issues in Operating Room Management. Philadelphia: Lippincott‐Raven, 1997:133‐49.

Health Protection Agency 2015

Health Protection Agency. Surveilance of surgical site infections in NHS hospitals in England 2014/2015. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484874/Surveillance_of_Surgical_Site_Infections_in_NHS_Hospitals_in_England_report_2014‐15.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016).

HICPAC 1999

Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection 1999. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1999;20(4):259.

Horan 1992

Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori T. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1992;13(10):606‐8.

Hospital Infection Society 2007

Hospital Infection Society. Third prevalence survey of healthcare associated infections in acute hospitals in England 2006. webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081105143757/dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_078388 (accessed 12 December 2016).

Jenks 2014

Jenks PJ, Laurent M, McQuarry S, Watkins R. Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection and predicted financial consequences of elimination of SSI from an English hospital. Journal of Hospital Infection 2014;86(1):24‐33.

Kovavisarach 2002

Kovavisarach E, Seedadee C. Randomised controlled trial of glove perforation in single and double‐gloving methods in gynaecologic surgery. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;42(5):519‐21.

Laine 2004

Laine T, Aarnio P. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery: a comparison between single, double indicator and double gloving with two regular gloves. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2004;86(6):898‐900.

Larson 1995

Larson E. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health‐care settings. American Journal of Infection Control 1995;23(4):251‐69.

Ljungqvist 2005

Ljungqvist O, Nygren J, Soop M, Thorell A. Metabolic perioperative management: novel concepts. Current Opinion in Critical Care 2005;11(4):295‐9.

Magill 2014

Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamburg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Kainer MA, et al. Multistate point‐prevalence survey of health care‐associated infections. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(13):1198‐208.

Mangram 1999

Mangram A, Horan T, Pearson M, Silver L, Jarvis W, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1999;20(4):250‐78.

NICE 2008

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. Clinical guideline [CG74]. October 2008. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg74 (accessed 23 February 2017).

NICE 2016

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hypothermia: prevention and management in adults having surgery. Clinical guideline [CG65]. December 2016. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg65 (accessed 23 February 2017).

Norman 2015

Norman G, Dumville JC, Mohapatra DP, Hassan IA, Edwards J, Christie J. Antiseptics for burns. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011821]

Public Health England 2014

Public Health England. Surveillance of surgical site infections in NHS hospitals in England: 2013 to 2014. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/386927/SSI_report_2013_14_final__3_.pdf (accessed 1 December 2016).

Reichman 2009

Reichman DE, Greenberg JA. Reducing surgical site infections: a review. Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009;2(4):212‐21.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration 2014.

Schünemann 2011a

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Schünemann 2011b

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Singer 2008

Singer AJ, Quinn JV, Hollander JE. The cyanoacrylate topical skin adhesives. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2008;26(4):490‐6.

Smyth 2008

Smyth ET, McIlvenny G, Enstone JE, Emmerson AM, Humphreys H, Fitzpatrick F, et al. Four country healthcare associated infection prevalence survey 2006: overview of the results. Journal of Hospital Infection 2008;69(3):230‐48.

Soderstrom 2003

Soderstrom R. Principles of electrosurgery as applied to gynaecology. In: Rock JA, Jones HW editor(s). Te Linde's Operative Gynecology. 9th Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003:291‐308.

Spagnolo 2013

Spagnolo AM, Ottria G, Amicizia D, Perdellif, Cristina ML. Operating theatre quality and prevention of surgical site infections. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene 2013;54(3):131‐7.

Stephan 2002

Stephan F, Yang K, Tankovic J, Soussy CJ, Dhonneur G, Duvaldestin P, et al. Impairment of polymorphonuclear neutrophil functions precedes nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine 2002;30(2):315‐22.

Swenson 2008

Swenson BR, Camp TR, Mulloy DP, Sawyer RG. Antimicrobial‐impregnated surgical incise drapes in the prevention of mesh infection after ventral hernia repair. Surgical Infections 2008;9(1):23‐32.

SWI Task Force 1992

Surgical Wound Infection (SWI) Task Force. Consensus paper on the surveillance of surgical wound infections. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1992;13(10):599‐605.

Wade 1980

Wade A. Pharmaceutical Handbook. 19th Edition. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 1980.

Warner 1988

Warner C. Skin preparation in the surgical patient. Journal of the National Medical Association 1988;80(8):899‐904.

Whiting 2016

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins J, Caldwell D, Reeves B, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology2016; Vol. 69:225‐34.

Whitney 2015

Whitney JD, Dellinger EP, Weber J, Swenson RE, Kent CD, Swanson PE, et al. The effects of local warming on surgical site infection. Surgical Infections 2015;16(5):595‐603.

Wu 2015

Wu L, Norman G, Dumville JC, O'Meara S, Bell‐Syer SE. Dressings for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010471.pub2]
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