Meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials of topical antibiotics after primary closure for the prevention of surgical-site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) increase patient morbidity and costs. The aim was to identify and synthesize all RCTs evaluating the effect of topical antibiotics on SSI in wounds healing by primary intention. METHODS: The search included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, Central Register of Controlled Trials and EBSCO CINAHL from inception to May 2016. There was no restriction of language, date or setting. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. When sufficient numbers of comparable trials were available, data were pooled in meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 6466 participants met the inclusion criteria. Pooling of eight trials (5427 participants) showed that topical antibiotics probably reduced the risk of SSI compared with no topical antibiotic (risk ratio (RR) 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·87; moderate-quality evidence), equating to 20 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated. Pooling of three trials (3012 participants) for risk of allergic contact dermatitis found no clear difference between antibiotics and no antibiotic (RR 3·94, 0·46 to 34·00; very low-quality evidence). Pooling of five trials (1299 participants) indicated that topical antibiotics probably reduce the risk of SSI compared with topical antiseptics (RR 0·49, 0·30 to 0·80; moderate-quality evidence); 43 fewer SSIs per 1000 patients treated. Pooling of two trials (541 participants) showed no clear difference in the risk of allergic contact dermatitis with antibiotics or antiseptic agents (RR 0·97, 0·52 to 1·82; very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Topical antibiotics probably prevent SSI compared with no topical antibiotic or antiseptic. No conclusion can be drawn regarding whether they cause allergic contact dermatitis.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing aqueous with alcoholic chlorhexidine antisepsis for the prevention of superficial surgical site infection after minor surgery in general practice: the AVALANCHE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) after minor skin excisions has a significant impact on patient morbidity and healthcare resources. Skin antisepsis prior to surgical incision is used to prevent SSI, and is performed routinely worldwide. However, in spite of the routine use of skin antisepsis, there is no consensus regarding which antiseptic agents are most effective. The AVALANCHE trial will compare Aqueous Versus Alcoholic Antisepsis with Chlorhexidine for Skin Excisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study design is a prospective, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with the aim of investigating the impact of two different antiseptic preparations on the incidence of superficial SSI in patients undergoing minor skin excisions. The intervention of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% alcohol will be compared with that of 0.5% CHG in aqueous solution. The trial will be conducted in four Australian general practices over a 9-month period, with 920 participants to be recruited. Consecutive patients presenting for minor skin excisions will be eligible to participate. Randomisation will be on the level of the patient. The primary outcome is superficial SSI in the first 30 days following the excision. Secondary outcomes will be adverse effects, including anaphylaxis, skin irritation, contact dermatitis and rash and patterns of antibiotic resistance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the James Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Findings will be disseminated in conference presentations and journals and through online electronic media. DISCUSSION: RCTs conducted in general practice differ from hospital-based projects in terms of feasibility, pragmatism and funding. The success of this trial will be cemented in the fact that the research question was established by a group of general practitioners who identified an interesting question which is relevant to their clinical practice and not answered by current evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001045505; Pre-results.

Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of skin lesions.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is an increasing problem in fair-skinned populations worldwide. It is important that doctors are able to diagnose skin lesions accurately. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical with the histological diagnosis of excised skin lesions from a set of epidemiological data. We analysed diagnostic accuracy stratified by histological subtype and body site and examined the histological nature of misclassified diagnosis. METHODS: All excised and histologically confirmed skin cancers in Townsville/Thuringowa, Australia from December 1996 to October 1999 were recorded. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and sensitivities were calculated for the clinical diagnoses and stratified by histological subtype and body site. RESULTS: Skin excisions in 8694 patients were examined. PPVs for the clinical diagnoses were: basal cell carcinoma (BCC) 72.7%; squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) 49.4%; cutaneous melanoma (CM) 33.3%. Sensitivities for the clinical diagnosis were: BCC 63.9%; SCC 41.1%; CM 33.8%. For BCC, PPVs and sensitivities were higher for the trunk, the shoulders and the face and lower for the extremities. The reverse pattern was seen for SCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy was highest for BCC, the most prevalent lesion. Most excisions were correctly diagnosed or resulted in the removal of malignant lesions. With nonmelanocytic lesions, doctors tended to misclassify benign lesions as malignant, but were less likely to do the reverse. Although a small number of clinically diagnosed common naevi subsequently proved to be melanoma (6.3%), a higher proportion of all melanomas had been classified as common naevi (20.9%). Accuracy of diagnosis was dependent on body site.