Dressing to prevent surgical site infection in adult patients with cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To identify the most effective dressing for application to surgical wounds with primary closure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) in adult patients with cancer undergoing elective surgeries. METHODS: This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, with online searches conducted in the CINHAL, Cochrane Central, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Livivo, and Web of Science databases. An additional search was conducted in gray literature using Google Scholar. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Development and Evaluation, and the results were synthesized in a descriptive manner and using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven randomized clinical trials were conducted to compare different types of dressing-silver dressing with absorbent dressing (n = 3), mupirocin dressing with paraffin/no dressing (n = 1), honey-based dressing with absorbent dressing (n = 1), vitamin E and silicone-containing dressing with absorbent dressing (n = 1), and negative pressure wound therapy with absorbent dressing (n = 4)-and compare the usage duration of absorbent dressing (n = 1). Nine trials presented a low risk of bias, and two were classified as having uncertain bias. Compared with absorbent dressing, silver dressing did not reduce the risk of developing any type of SSI in 894 clinical trial participants (risk relative RR: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.44, 1.17] p = 0.18). Compared with absorbent dressing, negative pressure wound therapy did not reduce the risk of developing any type of SSI in the 1041 participants of two clinical trials (RR 0.68; 95% CI [0.31, 1.26] p = 0.22). The certainty of evidence of the three meta-analyses was considered low or very low for the prevention of SSI. We believe that this low certainty of evidence can be improved by conducting new studies in the future. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence regarding which dressing is the most effective in preventing SSI in adult patients with cancer.

Curativo na ferida operatória para prevenção da infecção de sítio cirúrgico em pacientes adultos oncológicos: revisão sistemática / Surgical wound dressing to prevent surgical site infection in adult oncological patients: a systematic review

Introdução: O manejo da ferida operatória limpa no pós-operatório é uma importante intervenção para prevenção da infecção do sítio cirúrgico. O uso de curativo estéril na ferida operatória, aproximada por primeira intenção, deve ser utilizado de forma asséptica e tem como principal objetivo impedir a contaminação por microrganismo. No entanto, para as diretrizes clínicas para prevenção de infecção do sítio cirúrgico, não existe consenso sobre a escolha do curativo ideal. Objetivo: Sintetizar as evidências sobre o curativo efetivo para prevenção da infecção de sítio cirúrgico aplicado na ferida operatória, aproximada por primeira intenção, em pacientes oncológicos adultos submetidos a cirurgia eletiva. Materiais e Método: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática pautada no Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), registrada sob o número CRD42020156908, constituída das etapas: 1) Elaboração e registro do protocolo da revisão; 2) Delimitação da pergunta da revisão; 3) Definição dos critérios de elegibilidade; 4) Busca e seleção dos estudos; 5) Coleta de dados; e 6) Síntese e apresentação dos resultados da revisão sistemática. A estratégia de busca foi realizada nas bases de dados: Cochrane Central, Cinahl, Embase, Lilacs, Livivo, PubMed, Scopus e Web of Science. A estratégia de busca foi fundamentada no objetivo da revisão e adaptada para cada base de dados consultada. Utilizaram-se descritores controlados e palavras-chave, a saber: Neoplasms AND Bandages AND Surgical Wound Infection AND prevention and control. A literatura cinzenta consultada foi o Google Acadêmico e a ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. As etapas foram realizadas de forma independente e mascarada por dois revisores, e um terceiro para resolução de conflitos. Ao término da seleção dos estudos primários, realizou-se a busca manual nas listas de referências dos estudos primários incluídos. Resultados: A amostra compôs-se de sete ensaios clínicos aleatorizados. Os curativos absorventes foram comparados em cinco estudos incluídos. A mupirocina foi avaliada em dois estudos. Os curativos com prata foram avaliados em três estudos. O mel, a parafina, o tempo de retirada do curativo e a terapia por pressão negativa aparecem em um único ensaio cada. Em relação ao risco de viés, foram avaliados os sete estudos incluídos pela ferramenta da Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2), sendo seis de baixo risco e um estudo avaliado como risco incerto. A metanálise foi realizada com três ensaios que testaram curativo de prata versus o curativo absorvente, não demonstrando diferenças estatisticamente significantes (p= 0.77) na prevenção da infecção do sítio cirúrgico. O Intervalo de Confiança (IC) do diamante metanalítico varia de 0,41 a 1,06, assim não demonstra diferença estatisticamente significante na efetividade entre os tipos de curativo. A certeza da evidência foi avaliada pelo sistema GRADE e foi considerada forte em todos os domínios. Conclusões: A ausência de padronização em relação ao tipo e tempo de curativo utilizados nos estudos pode ser um dificultador para as recomendações do curativo ideal. E apesar dos resultados promissores com curativo impregnado com prata, ainda não é possível concluir qual é o curativo mais efetivo aplicado na ferida operatória, para prevenção de infecção de sítio cirúrgico, com fechamento primário, em pacientes oncológicos adultos submetidos a cirurgia eletiva

Introduction: The management of clean surgical wounds in the postoperative period is an important intervention to prevent surgical site infections. The use of sterile dressings in operative wounds, held together by primary intention, should be used aseptically, with the main objective of preventing microbiological contamination. However, clinical guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection do not provide a consensus about the choice of the optimal dressing. Objective: The aim of this review was to summarize the existing evidence about effective surgical site dressings for the prevention of operative wound infections, held together by primary intention in adult oncological patients submitted to elective surgery. Materials and Method: This was a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), registered under number CRD42020156908. It was developed according to the following phases: 1) preparing and registering the review protocol; 2) defining the review question; 3) defining the eligibility criteria; 4) searching and selecting the studies; 5) data collection; and 6) summarizing and presenting the results of the systematic review. The search strategy was carried out in the following databases: Cochrane Central, Cinahl, Embase, Lilacs, Livivo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was based on the objective of the review and adapted for each of the consulted databases. Controlled descriptors and keywords were used, namely: Neoplasms AND Bandages AND Surgical Wound Infection AND prevention and control. The grey literature consulted was Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. The stages were carried out independently and blindly by two reviewers, while a third reviewer was used to settle any conflicts. After selecting the primary studies, the researchers manually searched the reference lists of the included primary studies. Results: The sample consisted of seven randomized clinical trials. Absorbent dressings were compared in five included studies. Mupirocin was evaluated in two studies. Silver dressings were evaluated in three studies. Honey, paraffin, dressing removal time, and negative pressure therapy all appeared in a single trial each. Regarding the risk of bias, the seven studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2); six presented a low risk of bias and one study presented uncertain risk. The meta-analysis was performed with three trials that tested silver dressings versus absorbent dressings, with no statistically significant differences (p= 0.77) in the prevention of surgical site infection. The confidence interval (CI) of the diamond ratio varied between 0.41 and 1.06, thus it did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in effectiveness between the types of dressing. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system, which considered it strong in all categories. Conclusions: The lack of standardization regarding the type and duration of dressing used in the studies can make it difficult to recommend the ideal dressing. And despite the promising results with dressings impregnated with silver, it is still not possible to conclude which is the most effective dressing applied to the surgical wound, to prevent surgical site infection, with primary closure, in adult cancer patients undergoing elective surgery