Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(7)2022 03 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1841369

ABSTRACT

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) can prevent the occurrence of SSIs if administered appropriately. We carried out a retrospective cohort study to determine the incidence of SSIs and assess whether SAP were administered according to WHO guidelines for Caesarean section (CS) and herniorrhaphy patients in Bo regional government hospital from November 2019 to October 2020. The analysis included 681 patients (599 CSs and 82 herniorrhaphies). Overall, the SSI rate was 6.7% among all patients, and 7.5% and 1.2% among CS patients and herniorrhaphy patients, respectively. SAP was administered preoperatively in 85% of CS and 70% of herniorrhaphy patients. Postoperative antibiotics were prescribed to 85% of CS and 100% of herniorrhaphy patients. Ampicillin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin were the most commonly used antibiotics. The relatively low rate of SSIs observed in this study is probably due to improved infection prevention and control (IPC) measures following the Ebola outbreak and the current COVID-19 pandemic. A good compliance rate with WHO guidelines for preoperative SAP was observed. However, there was a high use of postoperative antibiotics, which is not in line with WHO guidelines. Recommendations were made to ensure the appropriate administration of SAP and reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Herniorrhaphy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , Sierra Leone/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , World Health Organization
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD004122, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813433

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Hair Removal , Surgical Wound Infection , Hair Removal/adverse effects , Humans , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
3.
J Am Coll Surg ; 234(4): 571-578, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1806770

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created shortages of operating room (OR) supplies, forcing healthcare systems to make concessions regarding "standard" OR attire. At our institution, we were required to reduce shoe covers, reuse face masks, and allow washable head coverings. We determined if these changes affected surgical site infection (SSI) rates. STUDY DESIGN: A single institutional study was performed to compare the SSI rates reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network in the 2 years preceding COVID-19 (PRE, January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020) with the first 12 months after the pandemic (POST, April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021). We confirmed our findings using propensity score matching and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Elimination of traditional shoe covers, disposable head covers, and single-use face masks was associated with a decreased SSI rate from 5.1% PRE to 2.6% POST (p < 0.001). Furthermore, this was despite a 14% increase in surgical volume and an increase in the number of contaminated/dirty cases (2.2% PRE vs 7.4% POST, p < 0.001). Use of disposable face masks decreased by 4.3-fold during this period from 3.5 million/y PRE to 0.8 million/y POST. Of note, inpatient hand hygiene throughout the hospital increased from 71% PRE to 85% POST (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has practical applications as we emerge from the pandemic and make decisions regarding OR attire. These data suggest that disposable head covers and shoe covers and frequent changes of face masks are unnecessary, and discontinuation of these practices will have significant cost and environmental implications. These data also reinforce the importance of good hand hygiene for infection prevention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Masks , Operating Rooms , Pandemics/prevention & control , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(6)2022 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760587

ABSTRACT

Indoor air quality in hospital operating rooms is of great concern for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI). A wide range of relevant medical and engineering literature has shown that the reduction in air contamination can be achieved by introducing a more efficient set of controls of HVAC systems and exploiting alarms and monitoring systems that allow having a clear report of the internal air status level. In this paper, an operating room air quality monitoring system based on a fuzzy decision support system has been proposed in order to help hospital staff responsible to guarantee a safe environment. The goal of the work is to reduce the airborne contamination in order to optimize the surgical environment, thus preventing the occurrence of SSI and reducing the related mortality rate. The advantage of FIS is that the evaluation of the air quality is based on easy-to-find input data established on the best combination of parameters and level of alert. Compared to other literature works, the proposed approach based on the FIS has been designed to take into account also the movement of clinicians in the operating room in order to monitor unauthorized paths. The test of the proposed strategy has been executed by exploiting data collected by ad-hoc sensors placed inside a real operating block during the experimental activities of the "Bacterial Infections Post Surgery" Project (BIPS). Results show that the system is capable to return risk values with extreme precision.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution, Indoor , Operating Rooms , Air Conditioning , Air Microbiology , Air Pollution, Indoor/analysis , Air Pollution, Indoor/prevention & control , Humans , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
5.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e047500, 2022 Feb 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1752848

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is controversy regarding the importance of air-transmitted infections for surgical site infections (SSIs) after orthopaedic surgery. Research has been hindered by both the inability in blinding the exposure, and by the need for recruiting large enough cohorts. The aim of this study is to investigate whether using a new form of air purifier using plasma air purification (PAP) in operating rooms (ORs) lowers the SSI rate or not. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre, double-blind, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at seven hospitals in 2017-2022. All patients that undergo orthopaedic surgery for minimum 30 min are included. Intervention group: patients operated in OR with PAP devices turned on. CONTROL GROUP: patients operated in OR with PAP devices turned off. Randomisation: each OR will be randomised in periods of 4 weeks, 6 weeks or 8 weeks to either have the devices on or off. PRIMARY OUTCOME: any SSI postoperatively defined as a composite endpoint of any of the following: use of isoxazolylpenicillin, clindamycin or rifampicin for 2 days or more, International Classification of Diseases codes or Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee codes indicating postoperative infection. In a second step, we will perform a chart review on those patients with positive indicators of SSI to further validate the outcome. Secondary outcomes are described in the Methods section. Power: we assume an SSI rate of 2%, an SSI reduction rate of 25% and we need approximately 45 000 patients to attain a power of 80% at a significance level of 0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The interim analysis results from the study will be presented only to the researchers involved unless the study thereafter is interrupted for whatever reason. Publication in a medical journal will be presented after inclusion of the last patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02695368.


Subject(s)
Orthopedic Procedures , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Incidence , Orthopedic Procedures/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
7.
Pediatr Surg Int ; 38(2): 325-330, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1474001

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has prompted significant policy change, with critical attention to the conservation of personal protective equipment (PPE). An extended surgical mask use policy was implemented at our institution, allowing use of one disposable mask per each individual, per day, for all the cases. We investigate the clinical impact of this policy change and its effect on the rate of 30-day surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed for all the elective pediatric general surgery cases performed pre-COVID from August 2019 to October 2019 and under the extended mask use policy from August 2020 to October 2020. Procedure type, SSI within 30 days, and postoperative interventions were recorded. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight cases were reviewed: 240 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort and 248 in the extended surgical mask use cohort. Three SSIs were identified in the 2019 cohort, and two in the 2020 cohort. All postoperative infections were superficial and resolved within 1 month of diagnosis with oral antibiotics. There were no deep space infections, readmissions, or infections requiring re-operation. CONCLUSION: Extended surgical mask use was not associated with increased SSI in this series of pediatric general surgery cases and may be considered an effective and safe strategy for resource conservation with minimal clinical impact.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Masks , Child , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
8.
No Shinkei Geka ; 49(5): 1093-1104, 2021 Sep.
Article in Japanese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456522

ABSTRACT

Although surgical site infections(SSIs)are usually controllable, their occasional occurrence is unavoidable. SSIs in neurosurgery comprise surgical-wound infections and surgical-organ/space infections. Data from the Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance revealed an overall infection rate of 1.1% during the first half of 2020. Responses to two questionnaire-based surveys on SSI prevention and complications related to cranial implant/artificial bone revealed the real world situation in neurosurgery. In 2020, neurosurgical information was added to the practical guidelines concerning the proper use of prophylactic antibacterial drug for SSIs. COVID-19 hygiene control protocols may have reduced the incidence of SSIs. It may be prudent to continue this stringent hygiene control after the COVID-19 pandemic has abated. Information of medical material on SSI is presented in this article, including the Plus suture®, DuraGen®, DuraSeal®, Adherus®, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene(SKULPIO®, CRANIOFIT-PE®), Bioglide® and Bactiseal® shunt systems, and olanexidine. Minimizing SSIs requires proper knowledge on infection control, taking care while performing neurosurgical procedures, and compassion for the patients. In addition, information and material must be updated over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neurosurgery , Humans , Neurosurgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
9.
J Tissue Viability ; 30(4): 484-488, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401669

ABSTRACT

AIM: This study aimed to determine the problems faced by physicians and nurses dealing with chronic wound care during the COVID-19 pandemic and their views on telehealth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used in this study. The sample comprised physicians (n = 74) and nurses (n = 271) interested in chronic wound care. Data were collected through a questionnaire form consisting of open- and closed-ended questions. RESULTS: Of the participants, 21.4% (n = 74) were physicians and 78.6% (n = 271) were nurses. Of the physicians, 45.9% (n = 34) were obliged to work in another unit during the COVID-19 period, while 43.2% continued their service related to chronic wound care, and only 17.0% (n = 18) in the wound care service before the pandemic. These rates are 51.3% (n = 139), 51.6% (n = 157) and 36.8% (n = 128) for nurses, respectively. 40.7% of the physicians (n = 33) and 34.9% of the nurses (n = 106) stated that their time had been reduced for chronic wound care. When the telehealth experiences were examined, 32.4% (n = 24) of the physicians utilized telehealth, 29.7% (n = 22) used e-visit, 77.0% (n = 57) stated that they thought telehealth was a good option, 47.3% (n = 35) utilized it for wound evaluation and treatment, and 31.9% (n = 59) used smart phones. These rates for nurses were 16.6% (n = 45), 14.0% (n = 38), 72.7% (n = 197), 33.9% (n = 92), and 27.0% (n = 182), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the manner of delivery, duration, and quality of service regarding wound management. During this period, face-to-face contact times with patients were reduced, some diagnosis and treatment attempts were not performed, and wound care services were suspended temporarily or permanently. On the other hand, a positive result was achieved in that the physicians and nurses gave positive feedback for the telehealth experience.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Professional-Patient Relations , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Telemedicine/methods , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Qualitative Research , Turkey
10.
Br J Surg ; 107(13): 1708-1712, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384126

ABSTRACT

This study used a national administrative database to estimate perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, and associated mortality, relative to nosocomial transmission rates. The impact of nosocomial transmission was greatest after major emergency surgery, whereas laparoscopic surgery may be protective owing to reduced duration of hospital stay. Procedure-specific risk estimates are provided to facilitate surgical decision-making and informed consent. Estimated risks.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Infection Control/methods , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/mortality , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Databases, Factual , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Survival Analysis
11.
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet ; 43(5): 374-376, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284746

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To analyze effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the consumption of personal protective equipment and products (PPEP), as well as the frequency of surgical site infection (SSI) among non-COVID-19 patients submitted to cesarean sections. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a maternity unity of a public teaching hospital which was not part of the reference service for COVID-19 treatment. It compared PPEP consumption and the occurrence of SSI after cesarean sections in monthly periods before and after the occurrence of the first case of COVID-19 in Porto Alegre, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Personal protective equipment and products consumption was measured as units of masks, gloves, gowns, and caps, and use of alcohol-based products or soap for hand sanitation as ml/patient/day. The SSI index was calculated as the proportion of cases of SSI over the number of cesarean sections performed monthly during the study period. RESULTS: There was an increase in all measured items of PPEP, with consumption of disposable masks with a median of 1,450 units in the pre-COVID period, and of 2550 in the post-COVID period (a 75.9% increase). A decrease of 49% in SSI was detected, with a median of 1.74 in the pre-COVID period and of 0.89 in the post-COVID period. CONCLUSION: The increase in consumption of PPEP could be a result of safer practices adopted by healthcare workers with the advent of COVID-19, of which the following reduction in the occurrence of SSI could be a direct consequence. Despite the severity of the crisis, one could state that extreme situations can lead to valuable reflections and opportunities for improvement.


OBJETIVO: Analisar os efeitos da pandemia de COVID-19 sobre o consumo de equipamentos e produtos de proteção individual (EPPI), assim como a frequência de infecção de sítio cirúrgico (ISC) em pacientes não infectadas por COVID-19 submetidas a cesarianas. MéTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo retrospectivo em uma maternidade de um hospital público de ensino que não fazia parte do serviço de referência para o tratamento do COVID-19. Foram comparados o consumo de EPPI e a ocorrência de ISC após cesárea nos períodos mensais antes e após a ocorrência do primeiro caso de COVID-19 em Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. O consumo de EPPI foi medido em unidades de máscaras, luvas, aventais e gorros, e o uso de produtos à base de álcool ou de sabonete para higienização das mãos em ml/paciente/dia. O índice SSI foi calculado como a proporção de casos de ISC sobre o número de cesarianas realizadas mensalmente durante o período do estudo. RESULTADOS: Houve aumento em todos os itens medidos do EPPI, com o consumo de máscaras descartáveis apresentando uma mediana de 1.450 no período pré-COVID e de 2550 no período pós-COVID (aumento de 75,9%). Detectou-se também diminuição de ISC, com medianas de 1,74 no período pré-COVID e de 0,89 no período pós-COVID, com redução de 49% no valor da mediana. CONCLUSãO: O aumento do consumo de EPPI pode ser resultado de práticas mais seguras adotadas pelos profissionais de saúde com o advento do COVID-19, do qual a redução na ocorrência de ISC pode ser uma consequência direta. Apesar da gravidade da crise, pode-se afirmar que situações extremas podem gerar reflexões valiosas e oportunidades de melhorias.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cesarean Section , Hand Sanitizers , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies
12.
Updates Surg ; 73(5): 1775-1786, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1274974

ABSTRACT

Several regimens of oral and intravenous antibiotics (OIVA) have been proposed with contradicting results, and the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is still controversial. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing Surgical Site Infections (SSI) in elective colorectal surgery. In a multicentre trial, we randomized patients undergoing elective colorectal resection surgery, comparing the effectiveness of OIVA versus intravenous antibiotics (IVA) regimens to prevent SSI as the primary outcome (NCT04438655). In addition to intravenous Amoxicillin/Clavulanic, patients in the OIVA group received Oral Neomycin and Bacitracin 24 h before surgery. MBP was administered according to local habits which were not changed for the study. The trial was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many centers failed to participate as well as the pandemic changed the rules for engaging patients. Two-hundred and four patients were enrolled (100 in the OIVA and 104 in the IVA group); 3 SSIs (3.4%) were registered in the OIVA and 14 (14.4%) in the IVA group (p = 0.010). No difference was observed in terms of anastomotic leak. Multivariable analysis indicated that OIVA reduced the rate of SSI (OR 0.21 / 95% CI 0.06-0.78 / p = 0.019), while BMI is a risk factor of SSI (OR 1.15 / 95% CI 1.01-1.30 p = 0.039). Subgroup analysis indicated that 0/22 patients who underwent OIVA/MBP + vs 13/77 IVA/MBP- experienced an SSI (p = 0.037). The early termination of the study prevents any conclusion regarding the interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, Oral Neomycin/Bacitracin and intravenous beta-lactam/beta-lactamases inhibitors seem to reduce SSI after colorectal resections, although not affecting the anastomotic leak in this trial. The role of MBP requires more investigation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Surgery , Administration, Oral , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Bacitracin , Cathartics/therapeutic use , Colectomy , Colorectal Surgery/adverse effects , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Neomycin , Pandemics , Preoperative Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
13.
J Wound Care ; 30(4): 284-296, 2021 Apr 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1187161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, infections are treated with antimicrobials (for example, antibiotics, antiseptics, etc), but antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the most serious health threats of the 21st century (before the emergence of COVID-19). Wounds can be a source of infection by allowing unconstrained entry of microorganisms into the body, including antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. The development of new antimicrobials (particularly antibiotics) is not keeping pace with the evolution of resistant microorganisms and novel ways of addressing this problem are urgently required. One such initiative has been the development of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, which educate healthcare workers, and control the prescribing and targeting of antimicrobials to reduce the likelihood of AMR. Of great importance has been the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) in supporting AMS by providing practical recommendations for optimising antimicrobial therapy for the treatment of wound infection. The use of wound dressings that use a physical sequestration and retention approach rather than antimicrobial agents to reduce bacterial burden offers a novel approach that supports AMS. Bacterial-binding by dressings and their physical removal, rather than active killing, minimises their damage and hence prevents the release of damaging endotoxins. AIM: Our objective is to highlight AMS for the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials and to investigate how dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings can support AMS goals. METHOD: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar were searched to identify published articles describing data relating to AMS, and the use of a variety of wound dressings in the prevention and/or treatment of wound infections. The evidence supporting alternative wound dressings that can reduce bioburden and prevent and/or treat wound infection in a manner that does not kill or damage the microorganisms (for example, by actively binding and removing intact microorganisms from wounds) were then narratively reviewed. RESULTS: The evidence reviewed here demonstrates that using bacterial-binding wound dressings that act in a physical manner (for example, DACC-coated dressings) as an alternative approach to preventing and/or treating infection in both acute and hard-to-heal wounds does not exacerbate AMR and supports AMS. CONCLUSION: Some wound dressings work via a mechanism that promotes the binding and physical uptake, sequestration and removal of intact microorganisms from the wound bed (for example, a wound dressing that uses DACC technology to successfully prevent/reduce infection). They provide a valuable tool that aligns with the requirements of AMS (for example, reducing the use of antimicrobials in wound treatment regimens) by effectively reducing wound bioburden without inducing/selecting for resistant bacteria.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents/administration & dosage , Antimicrobial Stewardship/methods , Bandages , COVID-19 , Chlorides/administration & dosage , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Wounds and Injuries/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Drug Resistance, Microbial , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond) ; 82(3): 1-6, 2021 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1168179

ABSTRACT

Antibiotics are one of the most widely used classes of drugs within hospitals in the UK. They have a wide range of uses within all surgical specialties, both as preoperative prophylaxis and for treatment of acute surgical conditions. Antimicrobial resistance has increasingly been seen as a major issue, as the production of new antibiotics has decreased and overall use worldwide has increased. With the COVID-19 pandemic increasing concerns about antimicrobial resistance, there is an ever-increasing need for action. This article examines the particular challenges of antibiotic stewardship in surgical departments within the UK, and outlines possible solutions for improving adherence and reducing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the future.


Subject(s)
Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Antimicrobial Stewardship/methods , Surgery Department, Hospital , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Appendicitis/therapy , Cholecystitis/therapy , Diverticulitis/therapy , Humans , Preoperative Care , Surgical Wound Infection/drug therapy , United Kingdom
15.
Neurosurg Rev ; 44(6): 3421-3425, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118237

ABSTRACT

Hygiene measures were intensified when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Patient contacts were limited to a minimum. Visitors were either not allowed for a certain period or limited for the rest of the time. The hospital staff began to wear masks and gloves continuously. Clinical examinations and routine wound controls were also performed under intensified hygiene standards. These circumstances result in a limitation of direct physical interactions between the nursing staff, the physicians and the patients. We analyzed to what extent the intensification of hygiene measures affects the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) after neurosurgical procedures. The rate of SSI during the 6-month interval after the beginning of COVID-19 measures was compared with the SSI rate before. The numbers of the period before COVID-19 were analyzed as mean values resulting from the analysis of two separate time periods each consisting of 6 months. The spectrum of surgical procedures was compared. Patient-related risk factors for SSIs were noted. Microorganisms were analyzed. We focused on SSIs occurring at a maximum of 60 days after the primary surgery. Overall, in the two respective 6-month periods before COVID-19, a mean of 1379 patients was surgically treated in our institution. After the beginning of COVID-19 (starting from 04/2020) our surgical numbers dropped by 101, resulting in a total number of 1278 patients being operated after 03/2020 until 09/2020. The SSI rate was 3.6% (03/2019-09/2019, 50 SSIs) and 2.2% (09/2019-03/2020, 29 SSIs), resulting in a mean of 2.9% before COVID-19 began. After the beginning of COVID-19 hygiene measures, this rate dropped to 1.4% (16 SSIs) resembling a significant reduction (p=0.003). Risk factors for the development of SSI were present in 81.3% of all patients. Pre- and post-COVID-19 patient groups had similar baseline characteristics. The same holds true when comparing the percentage of cranial and spinal procedures pre- and post-COVID-19 (p=0.91). Comparing the numbers (p=0.28) and the species (p=0.85) of microorganisms (MO) causing SSI, we found a similar distribution. Despite equal demographics and characteristics of SSI, the rate of SSI dropped substantially. This argues for an effective reduction of postoperative SSI resulting from the implementation of strict hygiene measures being established after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore advocate continuing with strict and intensive hygiene measures in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neurosurgery , Humans , Neurosurgical Procedures/adverse effects , Pandemics , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
16.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(3): 151-154, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1110067

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant disruption to all surgical specialties. In the UK, units have cancelled elective surgery and a decrease in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) was favoured. Centres around the world advocate the use of negative pressure environments for AGPs in reducing the spread of infectious airborne particles. We present an overview of operating theatre ventilation systems and the respective evidence with relation to surgical site infection (SSI) and airborne pathogen transmission in light of COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included "COVID-19", "theatre ventilation", "laminar", "turbulent" and "negative pressure". FINDINGS: Evidence for laminar flow ventilation in reducing the rate of SSI in orthopaedic surgery is widely documented. There is little evidence to support its use in general surgery. Following previous viral outbreaks, some centres have introduced negative pressure ventilation in an attempt to decrease exposure of airborne pathogens to staff and surrounding areas. This has again been suggested during the COVID-19 pandemic. A limited number of studies show some positive results for the use of negative pressure ventilation systems and reduction in spread of pathogens; however, cost, accessibility and duration of conversion remain an unexplored issue. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to advocate large scale conversion at this time. Nevertheless, it may be useful for each centre to have its own negative pressure room available for AGPs and high risk patients.


Subject(s)
Air Filters , COVID-19/prevention & control , Environment, Controlled , Operating Rooms , Patient Isolators , Surgical Procedures, Operative/methods , Ventilation/methods , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Orthopedic Procedures , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
17.
J Hosp Infect ; 111: 189-199, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083194

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic not only had an impact on public life and healthcare facilities in general, but also affected established surgical workflows for elective procedures. The strategy to protect patients and healthcare workers from infection by SARS-CoV-2 in surgical departments has needed step-by-step development. Based on the evaluation of international recommendations and guidelines, as well as personal experiences in a clinical 'hot spot' and in a 450-bed surgical clinic, an adapted surgical site infection (SSI) prevention checklist was needed to develop concise instructions, which described roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals that could be used for wider guidance in pandemic conditions. METHOD: Publications of COVID-19-related recommendations and guidelines, produced by health authorities and organizations, such as WHO, US-CDC, ECDC, the American College of Surgery and the Robert Koch Institute, were retrieved, assessed and referenced up to 31st January 2020. Additionally, clinical personal experiences in Germany were evaluated and considered. RESULTS: Part 1 of this guidance summarizes the experience of a tertiary care, surgical centre which utilized redundant hospital buildings for immediate spatial separation in a 'hot spot' COVID-19 area. Part 2 outlines the successful screening and isolation strategy in a surgical clinic in a region of Germany with outbreaks in surrounding medical centres. Part 3 provides the synopsis of personal experiences and international recommendations suggested for implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Understanding of COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2-related epidemiology, is constantly and rapidly changing, requiring continuous adaptation and re-evaluation of recommendations. Established national and local guidelines for continuation of surgical services and prevention of SSI require ongoing scrutiny and focused implementation. This manuscript presents a core facility checklist to support medical institutions to continue their clinical and surgical work during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Germany , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Perioper Pract ; 31(4): 159-162, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067157

ABSTRACT

On 20 August 2020, Public Health England released a new version of the 'COVID-19: Guidance for the remobilisation of services within health and care settings: infection prevention and control recommendations', superseding that of 18 June 2020. In this document, the infection prevention and control principles determine that the treatment, care and support of patients are to be managed in three COVID-19 pathways. These are: 'high risk', 'medium risk' and 'low risk'. In the operating theatre, where procedures may be urgent or planned, and where various surgical and anaesthetic procedures generate airborne particles (aerosols), it is crucial to communicate the infection prevention and control recommendations in a way that is easily understood and followed by all healthcare professionals. The theatre team at one hospital in the East of England produced local alternating signage to communicate the COVID-19 pathway risk during cases in theatres. This signage - named the 'COVID-19 Flag' - is placed outside of the individual theatre to ensure that staff are informed of the infection risk with the cases underway. Furthermore, it is a quick visual guide to be used in conjunction with national guidance and local protocols for appropriate decisions regarding the treatment and care of patients in the operating theatres.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/nursing , Communication , Critical Pathways/organization & administration , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Surgical Wound Infection/nursing , England , Humans , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Risk Factors , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control
19.
J Hosp Infect ; 110: 97-102, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1051768

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are a global patient safety concern. Due to lack of evidence on contamination, pre-set surgical goods are sometimes disposed of or re-sterilized, thus increasing costs, resource use, and environmental effects. AIM: To investigate time-dependent bacterial air contamination of covered and uncovered sterile goods in the operating room. METHODS: Blood agar plates (N = 1584) were used to detect bacterial air contamination of sterile fields on 48 occasions. Each time, three aerobe and three anaerobe plates were used as baseline to model the preparation time, and 60 (30 aerobe, 30 anaerobe) were used to model the time pending before operation; half of these were covered with sterile drapes and half remained uncovered. Plates were collected after 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 h. FINDINGS: Mean time before contamination was 2.8 h (95% confidence interval: 2.1-3.4) in the uncovered group and 3.8 h (3.2-4.4) in the covered group (P = 0.005). The uncovered group had 98 colony-forming units (cfu) versus 20 in the covered group (P = 0.0001). Sixteen different micro-organisms were isolated, the most common being Cutibacterium acnes followed by Micrococcus luteus. Of 32 Staphylococcus cfu, 14 were antibiotic resistant, including one multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. CONCLUSION: Protecting sterile fields from bacterial air contamination with sterile covers enhances the durability of sterile goods up to 24 h. Prolonged durability of sterile goods might benefit patient safety, since surgical sterile material could be prepared in advance for acute surgery, thereby enhancing quality of care and reducing both climate impact and costs.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , Equipment Contamination , Operating Rooms , Humans , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purification , Micrococcus luteus/isolation & purification , Propionibacteriaceae/isolation & purification , Staphylococcus epidermidis , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Time Factors
20.
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL