Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs. METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I2 = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I2 = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL. CONCLUSION: IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.

Effective Hand Preparation for Surgical Procedures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: The burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common HAI in LMICs. Hand hygiene is the single most effective strategy for reducing HAIs and the transmission of antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogens. Similarly, effective surgical hand preparation is a critical step in the prevention of SSIs in the surgical patient. Methods: Surgical hand preparation (SHP) is a seemingly simple activity that is easily overlooked. Performed properly, however, along with other measures, it has the potential to reduce SSIs in LMICs. The article reviews the current state of surgical hand preparation in LMICs. Results: Alcohol-based handrubs (ABHRs) have received wide acceptance by healthcare workers for both hand hygiene and SHP; when mixed with emollients, ABHRs retain efficacy against microorganisms and gain skin tolerability and user acceptability. Healthcare institutions in many LMICs face difficulties obtaining the products needed to ensure effective SHP using ABHRs. Conclusion: The ABHRs are the most efficacious surgical hand preparation products available today. They are cost-effective and can safely be prepared locally in hospitals, even in LMICs. The challenge of access to ABHRs should be addressed by national and local governments, through advocacy by healthcare workers coupled with continued lobbying and campaigns by the World Health Organization. Effective surgical hand preparation, like hand hygiene, saves lives.