Surgical site infection prevention following total hip arthroplasty in Australia : a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with substantial costs for health services, reduced quality of life, and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies claiming to reduce the risk of SSI in hip arthroplasty in Australia. Methods: Baseline use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis (no AP), antibiotic-impregnated cement (AP þ ABC), and laminar air operating rooms (AP þ LOR). A Markov model was used to simulate long-term health and cost outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of 30,000 total hip arthroplasty patients from a health services perspective. Model parameters were informed by the best available evidence. Uncertainty was explored in probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results: Stopping the routine use of AP resulted in over Australian dollars (AUD) $1.5 million extra costs and a loss of 163 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using antibiotic cement in addition to AP (AP þ ABC)generated an extra 32 QALYs while saving over AUD $123,000. The use of laminar air operating rooms combined with routine AP (AP þ LOR) resulted in an AUD $4.59 million cost increase and 127 QALYs lost compared with the baseline comparator. Conclusion: Preventing deep SSI with antibiotic prophylaxis and antibiotic-impregnated cement has shown to improve health outcomes among hospitalized patients, save lives, and enhance resource allocation. Based on this evidence, the use of laminar air operating rooms is not recommended.

Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty : guideline recommendations and expert opinion

BACKGROUND: Numerous strategies are available to prevent surgical site infections in hip arthroplasty, but there is no consensus on which might be the best. This study examined infection prevention strategies currently recommended for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Four clinical guidelines on infection prevention/orthopedics were reviewed. Infection control practitioners, infectious disease physicians, and orthopedic surgeons were consulted through structured interviews and an online survey. Strategies were classified as "highly important" if they were recommended by at least one guideline and ranked as significantly or critically important by >/=75% of the experts. RESULTS: The guideline review yielded 28 infection prevention measures, with 7 identified by experts as being highly important in this context: antibiotic prophylaxis, antiseptic skin preparation of patients, hand/forearm antisepsis by surgical staff, sterile gowns/surgical attire, ultraclean/laminar air operating theatres, antibiotic-impregnated cement, and surveillance. Controversial measures included antibiotic-impregnated cement and, considering recent literature, laminar air operating theatres. CONCLUSIONS: Some of these measures may already be accepted as routine clinical practice, whereas others are controversial. Whether these practices should be continued for this patient group will be informed by modeling the cost-effectiveness of infection prevention strategies. This will allow predictions of long-term health and cost outcomes and thus inform decisions on how to best use scarce health care resources for infection control.

Prevention of surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty : an international tertiary care center survery

Background Prevention strategies are critical to reduce infection rates in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), but evidence-based consensus guidelines on prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) remain heterogeneous and do not necessarily represent this particular patient population. Questions/Purposes What infection prevention measures are recommended by consensus evidence-based guidelines for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection? How do these recommendations compare to expert consensus on infection prevention strategies from orthopedic surgeons from the largest international tertiary referral centers for TJA? Patients and Methods A review of consensus guidelines was undertaken as described by Merollini et al. Four clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's, British Orthopedic Association, National Institute of Clinical Excellence's, and National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC). Twenty-eight recommendations from these guidelines were used to create an evidence-based survey of infection prevention strategies that was administered to 28 orthopedic surgeons from members of the International Society of Orthopedic Centers. The results between existing consensus guidelines and expert opinion were then compared. Results Recommended strategies in the guidelines such as prophylactic antibiotics, preoperative skin preparation of patients and staff, and sterile surgical attire were considered critically or significantly important by the surveyed surgeons. Additional strategies such as ultraclean air/laminar flow, antibiotic cement, wound irrigation, and preoperative blood glucose control were also considered highly important by surveyed surgeons, but were not recommended or not uniformly addressed in existing guidelines on SSI prevention. Conclusion Current evidence-based guidelines are incomplete and evidence should be updated specifically to address patient needs undergoing TJA.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

Background Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection. Objectives To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections. Search methods For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Main results We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively. Authors' conclusions This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Surgical Site Infection in a University Hospital in Northeast Brazil

We examined prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) in a tertiary teaching hospital in northeast Brazil, from January 1994 to December 2003. The survey included 5,742 patients subjected to thoracic, urologic, vascular and general surgery. The criteria for diagnosing SSI were those of the Centers for Disease Control, USA, and the variables of the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance risk index were used. Data analysis revealed that anesthetic risk scores, wound class and duration of surgery were significantly associated with SSI. A total of 296 SSIs were detected among the 5,742 patients (5.1%). The overall incidence of SSI was 8.8% in 1994; it decreased to 3.3% in 2003. In conclusion, the use of educational strategies, based on guidelines for SSI prevention reduced SSI incidence. Appropriate management of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative incision care, and a surveillance system based on international criteria, were useful in reducing SSI rates in our hospital

Operation time and body mass index are significant risk factors for surgical site infection in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: a multicenter study

Surgical site infection (SSI) in patients who underwent colorectal surgery is a common complication associated with increased morbidity and costs. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for SSI in laparoscopic sigmoid resection for benign disease.