-
1.
Impact of oral preoperative and perioperative immunonutrition on postoperative infection and mortality in patients undergoing cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Buzquurz, F, Bojesen, RD, Grube, C, Madsen, MT, Gögenur, I
BJS open. 2020;(5):764-775
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infectious complications occur in 4-22 per cent of patients undergoing surgical resection of malignant solid tumours. Improving the patient's immune system in relation to oncological surgery with immunonutrition may play an important role in reducing postoperative infections. A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the potential clinical benefits of immunonutrition on postoperative infections and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing oncological surgery. METHODS PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Eligible studies had to include patients undergoing elective curative surgery for a solid malignant tumour and receiving immunonutrition orally before surgery, including patients who continued immunonutrition into the postoperative period. The main outcome was overall infectious complications; secondary outcomes were surgical-site infection (SSI) and 30-day mortality, described by relative risk (RR) with trial sequential analysis (TSA). Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane methodology. RESULTS Some 22 RCTs with 2159 participants were eligible for meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, immunonutrition reduced overall infectious complications (RR 0·58, 95 per cent c.i. 0·48 to 0·70; I2 = 7 per cent; TSA-adjusted 95 per cent c.i. 0·28 to 1·21) and SSI (RR 0·65, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·85; I2 = 0 per cent; TSA-adjusted 95 per cent c.i. 0·21 to 2·04). Thirty-day mortality was not altered by immunonutrition (RR 0·69, 0·33 to 1·40; I2 = 0 per cent). CONCLUSION Immunonutrition reduced overall infectious complications, even after controlling for random error, and also reduced SSI. The quality of evidence was moderate, and mortality was not affected by immunonutrition (low quality). Oral immunonutrition merits consideration as a means of reducing overall infectious complications after cancer surgery.
-
2.
Probiotics Used for Postoperative Infections in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery.
Chen, C, Wen, T, Zhao, Q
BioMed research international. 2020;:5734718
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis about probiotics to improve postoperative infections in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS The PubMed and the Web of Science were used to search for appropriate randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics with placebo for the patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. The RevMan 5.3 was performed for meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative infection, including the total infection, surgical site infection, central line infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, septicemia, and postoperative leakage. RESULTS Our meta-analysis included 6 studies involving a total of 803 patients. For the incidence of total postoperative infection (odd ratios (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.64, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I 2 = 0%), surgical site infection (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99. CONCLUSIONS Probiotics is beneficial to prevent postoperative infections (including total postoperative infection, surgical site infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and septicemia) in patients with colorectal cancer.
-
3.
Association of malnutrition with periprosthetic joint and surgical site infections after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tsantes, AG, Papadopoulos, DV, Lytras, T, Tsantes, AE, Mavrogenis, AF, Korompilias, AV, Gelalis, ID, Tsantes, CG, Bonovas, S
The Journal of hospital infection. 2019;(1):69-77
Abstract
BACKGROUND A growing body of evidence associates malnutrition with several adverse outcomes. AIM: To investigate the link between malnutrition with surgical site and periprosthetic joint infections (SSIs and PJIs) following total knee and hip arthroplasty (TKA and THA) through a comprehensive meta-analysis of observational studies. METHODS A systematic search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus databases through December 2018, and recent proceedings of major orthopaedic meetings. Data from eligible studies were extracted and synthesized; pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. FINDINGS Seven publications were included, reporting eight independent cohort studies with >250,000 subjects. SSIs and PJIs were more likely to develop in malnourished patients (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.13-2.90; and 3.62; 2.33-5.64, respectively). The association of SSI with malnutrition was evident both after TKA (2.42; 1.94-3.02) and after THA (2.66; 1.64-4.30). Similarly, PJI was associated with malnutrition after TKA (2.55; 1.10-5.91) and after THA (3.10; 1.84-5.25). Finally, PJI correlated with malnutrition both after primary arthroplasty (3.58; 1.82-7.03) and revision arthroplasty (3.96; 2.47-6.33). The subgroup analysis by study setting confirmed the relationship between PJI and malnutrition in hospital (6.02; 3.07-11.81) and population-based (2.80; 1.76-4.44) studies. CONCLUSION Malnutrition is associated with PJIs and SSIs after total joint arthroplasty. Further high-quality research is warranted to confirm or refute these findings.
-
4.
Nasal decontamination for the prevention of surgical site infection in Staphylococcus aureus carriers.
Liu, Z, Norman, G, Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z, Wong, JK, Crosbie, EJ, Wilson, P
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;(5):CD012462
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection rates in the month following surgery vary from 1% to 5%. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Nasal decontamination using antibiotics or antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by preventing organisms from the nasal cavity being transferred to the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) colonises the nasal cavity and skin of carriers and can cause infection in open or unhealed surgical wounds. S aureus is the leading nosocomial (hospital-acquired) pathogen in hospitals worldwide. The potential effectiveness of nasal decontamination of S aureus is thought to be dependent on both the antibiotic/antiseptic used and the dose of application; however, it is unclear whether nasal decontamination actually reduces postoperative wound infection in S aureus carriers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of nasal decontamination on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in people who are S aureus carriers undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trial registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which enrolled S aureus carriers with any type of surgery and assessed the use of nasal decontamination with antiseptic/antibiotic properties were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS We located two studies (291 participants) for inclusion in this review. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and nasal decontamination regimens. One study compared mupirocin (2% contained in a base of polyethylene glycol 400 and polyethylene glycol 3350) with a placebo in elective cardiac surgery patients; and one study compared Anerdian (iodine 0.45% to 0.57% (W/V), chlorhexidine acetate 0.09% to 0.11% (W/V)) with no treatment also in cardiac surgery patients. The trials reported limited outcome data on SSI, adverse events and secondary outcomes (e.g. S aureus SSI, mortality). Mupirocin compared with placeboThis study found no clear difference in SSI risk following use of mupirocin compared with placebo (1 trial, 257 participants); risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.25 based on 18/130 events in the mupirocin group and 11/127 in the control group; low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision). Anerdian compared with no treatmentIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in SSI risk following treatment with Anerdian compared with no treatment (1 trial, 34 participants); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08 based on 1/18 events in the Anerdian group and 1/16 in the control group; very low certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision and once due to risk of bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of nasal decontamination in the prevention of SSI. This limitation is specific to the focused question our review addresses, looking at nasal decontamination as a single intervention in participants undergoing surgery who are known S aureus carriers. We were only able to identify two studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and one of these was very small and poorly reported. The potential benefits and harms of using decontamination for the prevention of SSI in this group of people remain uncertain.
-
5.
Probiotics and synbiotics for the prevention of postoperative infections following abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Lytvyn, L, Quach, K, Banfield, L, Johnston, BC, Mertz, D
The Journal of hospital infection. 2016;(2):130-9
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative infections, particularly surgical site infections (SSIs), cause significant morbidity and mortality. Probiotics or synbiotics are a potential prevention strategy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics for reducing postoperative infection risk following abdominal surgery. METHODS We searched AMED, Central, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and grey literature for randomized controlled trials of elective abdominal surgery patients administered probiotics or synbiotics compared to placebo or standard care. Primary outcome was SSIs. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, respiratory tract infections (RTIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), combined infections, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Using random-effects meta-analyses, we estimated the relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Tests were performed for heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the overall evidence quality was graded. FINDINGS We identified 20 trials (N = 1374 participants) reporting postoperative infections. Probiotics/synbiotics reduced SSIs (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41-0.98; N = 15 studies), UTIs (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.57; N = 11), and combined infections (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.70; N = 18). There was no difference between groups for adverse events (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.61-1.30; N = 6), RTIs (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36-1.00; N = 14), length of stay (MD: -1.19; 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.56; N = 12), or mortality (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.58-2.48; N = 15). CONCLUSION Our review suggests that probiotics/synbiotics reduce SSIs and UTIs from abdominal surgeries compared to placebo or standard of care, without evidence of safety risk. Overall study quality was low, owing mostly to imprecision (few patients and events, or wide CIs); thus larger multi-centered trials are needed to further assess the certainty in this estimate.
-
6.
Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery.
Dumville, JC, McFarlane, E, Edwards, P, Lipp, A, Holmes, A, Liu, Z
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(4):CD003949
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective. OBJECTIVES To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics. SEARCH METHODS For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).
-
7.
Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery.
Dumville, JC, McFarlane, E, Edwards, P, Lipp, A, Holmes, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(3):CD003949
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective. OBJECTIVES To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics. SEARCH METHODS For this second update we searched the The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 7 August 2012), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July Week 4 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 06, 2012), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 31), EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 3 August 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS Thirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).
-
8.
Pin site care for preventing infections associated with external bone fixators and pins.
Lethaby, A, Temple, J, Santy-Tomlinson, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(12):CD004551
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metal pins are used to apply skeletal traction or external fixation devices in the management of orthopaedic fractures. These percutaneous pins protrude through the skin, and the way in which they are treated after insertion may affect the incidence of pin site infection. This review set out to summarise the evidence of pin site care on infection rates. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect on infection rates of different methods of cleansing and dressing orthopaedic percutaneous pin sites. SEARCH METHODS In September 2013, for this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA We evaluated all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect on infection and other complication rates of different methods of cleansing or dressing orthopaedic percutaneous pin sites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the citations retrieved by the search strategies for reports of relevant RCTs, then independently selected trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and undertook quality assessment. MAIN RESULTS A total of eleven trials (572 participants) were eligible for inclusion in the review but not all participants contributed data to each comparison. Three trials compared a cleansing regimen (saline, alcohol, hydrogen peroxide or antibacterial soap) with no cleansing (application of a dry dressing), three trials compared alternative sterile cleansing solutions (saline, alcohol, peroxide, povidone iodine), three trials compared methods of cleansing (one trial compared identical pin site care performed daily or weekly and the two others compared sterile with non sterile techniques), one trial compared daily pin site care with no care and six trials compared different dressings (using different solutions/ointments and dry and impregnated gauze or sponges). One small blinded study of 38 patients found that the risk of pin site infection was significantly reduced with polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) gauze when compared to plain gauze (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.44) (infection rate of 1% in the PHMB group and 4.5% in the control group) but this study was at high risk of bias as the unit of analysis was observations rather than patients. There were no other statistically significant differences between groups in any of the other trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The available trial evidence was not extensive, was very heterogeneous and generally of poor quality, so there was insufficient evidence to be able to identify a strategy of pin site care that minimises infection rates. Adequately-powered randomised trials are required to examine the effects of different pin care regimens, and co-interventions - such as antibiotic use - and other extraneous factors must be controlled in the study designs.