ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Superficial surgical site infection (SSI) is a common morbidity following bowel resection surgery involving stoma formation with clinical and financial implications. The study aimed to evaluate the role of topical skin adhesive, 2-octylcyanoacrylate (Dermabond®) (2-OCA) in reducing wound infections following colorectal stoma surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-centre, cohort study using clinical notes. All patients, over the age of 18, undergoing bowel resection either elective or emergency, with stoma formation over five years from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. The primary endpoint was SSI, defined by the clinical manifestation of inflammation including pain, erythema, and discharge, regardless of the microbiological culture results. Patients received either 2-OCA glue as wound dressing or standard firm adhesive wound dressing e.g. Opsite. RESULTS: Overall, 604 patients were included in the study. The median age was 67; 187 (31%) patients received Dermabond (Group 1) and 417 (69%) received standard care (Group 2). A total of 288 (47%) patients were female, 134 (22%) had body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, 87 (14%) were diabetic, and 90 (15%) were smokers. A total of 279 (46%) patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3 and 4; 282 (47%) patients went through emergency surgery, 279 (64%) patients underwent dirty surgery, and 220 (35%) patients developed SSI. BMI greater than 30 compared to < 30 (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.54-3.49, p<0.0001), diabetes compared to no diabetes (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.92, p<0.0241), dirty surgery compared to clean surgery (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.51-3.37, p<0.0001) and standard care, no 2-OCA glue use compared to the use of 2-OCA glue (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.03-2.24, p=0.0343) were associated with SSIs. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that there is an association between 2-OCA and reduced SSIs in bowel resection surgery involving stoma formation when compared to standard methods of wound dressing. Further randomised clinical trials are recommended to strengthen this evidence and demonstrate causation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the management of acute appendicitis shifted towards non-operative management in the United Kingdom (UK). The open approach was recommended over the laparoscopic approach due to the risk of aerosol generation and subsequent contamination. The aim of this study was to compare the overall management and surgical outcomes of the patients treated for acute appendicitis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single district general hospital in the UK. We compared the management and outcome of the patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis before the pandemic, from March to August 2019, and during the pandemic, from March to August 2020. We looked at the patient demographics, methods of diagnosis, management, and surgical outcomes for these patients. The primary outcome of the study was the 30-day readmission rate. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and post-operative complications. RESULTS: Over the period of six months, a total of 179 patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis in 2019 (Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, from March 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019) versus 152 in 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020). For the 2019 cohort, the mean age of the patients was 33 (range 6-86 years), 52% (n=93) were female, and the mean BMI was 26 (range 14-58). For the 2020 cohort, the mean age was 37 (range 4-93 years), 48% (n=73) of the patients were female, and the mean BMI was 27 (range 16-53). At the first presentation, in 2019, 97.2% of the patients (174 out of 179) received surgical treatment compared to 70.4% (107 out of 152) in 2020. Three per cent of the patients (n=5) were managed conservatively in 2019 (two out these failed conservative management) as compared to 29.6% (n=45) in 2020 (21 of these failed conservative management). Pre-pandemic, only 32.4% (n= 57, ultrasound (US) scan: 11, computer tomography (CT) scan): 45, both US and CT: 1) of the patients received imaging to confirm the diagnosis as compared to 53.3% during pandemic (n=81, US scan: 12, CT scan: 63, both US and CT: 6). Overall, the CT to US ratio increased. We found that during 2019, 91.5% (n=161/176) of the patients who received surgical treatment went through laparoscopic surgery as compared to only 74.2% (n=95/128) in 2020 (p<0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred in 5.1% (n=9/176) of the surgical patients in 2019 as compared to 12.5% (n=16/128) in 2020 (p<0.033). The mean length of hospital stay in 2019 was 2.9 days (range 1-11) versus 4.5 days in 2020 (range 1-57) (p<0.0001). The 30-day readmission rate was 4.5% (8/179) versus 19.1% (29/152) (p<0.0001). The 90-day mortality rate was zero for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the management of acute appendicitis changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. More patients went through imaging, especially CT scans for diagnosis and received non-operative management with antibiotics only. The open surgical approach became more common during the pandemic. This was associated with longer lengths of hospital stay, more readmissions, and an increase in postoperative complications.
ABSTRACT
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global concern and has changed the way we practice medicine in acute hospital settings. This is particularly true with regard to patient triage, patient risk assessment, use of personal protective equipment, and environmental disinfection. Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is primarily through inhalation of respiratory droplets generated through talking, coughing, or sneezing. There is, however, a potential risk that respiratory droplets settling on inanimate surfaces and objects in the hospital environment could provide a reservoir for nosocomial infections in patients and pose a healthcare risk to medical staff. Indeed, there have been previous reports of healthcare-associated outbreaks in hospitals. Several authors have argued that the risk of transmission via fomites may be insignificant. It is, however, not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are attributable to direct contact with fomites; a few reports have indicated possible transmission via this route. Environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare institutions has been shown to vary according to the function or service provided by a unit or department. Information that identifies hospital areas that have a propensity for higher environmental burden may improve the practice of infection control and environmental cleaning and decontamination in healthcare institutions. This study aimed to investigate environmental SARS-CoV-2 contamination in the clinical areas of patients with COVID-19 infection. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional study performing swabbing of frequently touched surfaces, equipment, and ventilation ducts in five specific clinical areas of Peterborough City Hospital which is part of the North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust. The five clinical areas that were chosen for swabbing were the Emergency Department (ED), Intensive Care Unit (ICU), Isolation Ward, Respiratory Ward, and a Gastroenterology Ward that was serving as a receiving ward at the height of the second COVID-19 infection wave in the United Kingdom. Surfaces to be swabbed were divided into the patient zone, doctor zone, and nursing zone. Swabs from the chosen surfaces were collected on two consecutive days. A total of 158 surface swabs were collected during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Results The most contaminated clinical areas were the three receiving wards where 12% (11/96) of the swabs were positive. Inside the patient rooms, these surfaces included bed rails and controls, bedside tables, television screens, remote control units, and the room ventilation system. Outside the patient room, these surfaces included mobile computers and computer desk surfaces in the doctors' offices. All swabs taken from the ED and ICU were found to be negative. Conclusions Our study confirms the potential infection risks posed by environmental contamination with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This highlights the importance of adequate environmental cleaning for proper infection control and prevention in healthcare settings.
