[Surgical site infection and perioperative antibiotics in dermatosurgery]. / Postoperative Infektionen und perioperative Antibiose in der Dermatochirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative wound infections represent the most common complication in dermatosurgery. Given the low incidence and heterogeneous data, no standards for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) have been established in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current evidence on risk factors for postoperative wound infection in dermatosurgery and the new recommendations on PAP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant study data and current recommendations were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Current evidence suggests that the following factors are associated with an increased risk of wound infection after dermatosurgical procedures: surgery to the lower extremity or the ear, postoperative hemorrhage, defect closure by flap or skin graft, large wound defect, immunosuppression, and male sex. Probably not affecting the risk of infection are diabetes, obesity, age, smoking, use of a blood thinner, multiple surgeries, or wound healing by second intention. Not all risk factors affect the risk of infection equally. They must be weighted differently and only in combination do they increase the risk of wound infection in a clinically relevant way. According to a current position paper of the German Society for Dermatosurgery, the indication for PAP should be made individually and only if multiple factors are present. Furthermore, patients with increased risk for bacterial endocarditis or hematogenic endoprosthesis infection should receive PAP prior to septic skin surgery. CONCLUSION: In dermatologic surgery, PAP should be restricted to patients at high risk for wound infection. Further indications are the prevention of bacterial endocarditis and hematogenic endoprosthesis infection in high-risk individuals prior to septic surgery.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in skin surgery - Position paper of the Antibiotic Stewardship working group of the German Society for Dermatologic Surgery (DGDC), Part 2: Special indications and situations.

In addition to prevention of surgical site infections after skin surgery, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) aims to prevent the occurrence of other postoperative infectious complications, especially bacterial endocarditis and hematogenous joint prosthesis infections. This article discusses specific indications for the use of PAP. For example, patients who have undergone any type of heart valve replacement, including transcatheter valve replacement or use of prosthetic material to correct the heart valve, or patients who have experienced bacterial endocarditis, require PAP during skin surgery on mucosal membranes or ulcerated tumors. The use of PAP in special situations such as secondary wound healing, septic dermatosurgery or ulcer surgery is also presented and discussed in detail in this paper based on the current scientific literature. This paper represents the second part of the position paper of the Antibiotic Stewardship Working Group of the German Society for Dermatologic Surgery (DGDC) and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for the administration of PAP during skin surgery for special indications and situations. This is particularly important because, as detailed in Part 1 of this position paper, PAP can and usually should be avoided in skin surgery.

Surgical site infection in skin surgery-An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) has a significant impact on patients' morbidity and aesthetic results. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for SSI in dermatologic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, single-centre, observational study was performed between August 2020 and May 2021. Patients that presented for dermatologic surgery were included and monitored for the occurrence of SSI. For statistical analysis, we used a mixed effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 767 patients with 1272 surgical wounds were included in the analysis. The incidence of SSI was 6.1%. Significant risk factors for wound infection were defect size over 10cm2 (OR 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.80-7.35), surgery of cutaneous malignancy (OR 2.96, CI 1.41-6.24), postoperative bleeding (OR 4.63, CI 1.58-13.53), delayed defect closure by local skin flap (OR 2.67, CI 1.13-6.34) and localisation of surgery to the ear (OR 7.75, CI 2.07-28.99). Wound localisation in the lower extremities showed a trend towards significance (OR 3.16, CI 0.90-11.09). Patient-related factors, such as gender, age, diabetes, or immunosuppression, did not show a statistically significant association with postoperative infection. CONCLUSION: Large defects, surgery of cutaneous malignancy, postoperative bleeding, and delayed flap closure increase the risk for SSI. High-risk locations are the ears and lower extremities.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in skin surgery - Position paper of the Antibiotic Stewardship working group of the German Society for Dermatologic Surgery (DGDC), Part 1: Procedure- and patient-related risk factors.

The aim of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is to prevent the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) or other infectious complications (especially bacterial endocarditis or septic arthritis). PAP is effective in surgeries where overall infection rates are high even without considering patient-related risk factors (such as orthopedic surgery or fracture repair). Surgery on airways, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary tract is also considered to be associated with a risk of infection and may require PAP. Overall, SSIs in skin surgery are relatively rare and vary between 1% and 11% depending on the localization, complexity of the wound closure and patient cohort. Therefore, the general surgical recommendations regarding PAP only partially reflect the needs of dermatologic surgery. In contrast to the USA, where recommendations on the use of PAP in skin surgery already exist, there are currently no guidelines for the use of PAP specifically designed for dermatologic surgery in Germany. In the absence of an evidence-based recommendation, the use of PAP is guided by the experience of the surgeons and leads to a heterogeneous use of antimicrobial substances. In this work, we summarize the current scientific literature on the use of PAP and make a recommendation depending on procedure- and patient-related risk factors.

Procedure-Related Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection in Dermatologic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors is essential for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in dermatologic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether specific procedure-related factors are associated with SSI. METHODS: This systematic review of the literature included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and trial registers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk bias assessment. If suitable, the authors calculated risk factors and performed meta-analysis using random effects models. Otherwise, data were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies assessing 25,928 surgical procedures were included. Seven showed good, 2 fair, and 6 poor study quality. Local flaps (risk ratio [RR] 3.26, 95% confidence intervall [CI] 1.92-5.53) and skin grafting (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.37-6.34) were associated with higher SSI rates. Simple wound closure had a significantly lower infection risk (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.25-0.46). Second intention healing showed no association with SSI (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.40-8.35). Delayed wound closure may not affect the SSI rate. The risk for infection may increase with the degree of preoperative contamination. There is limited evidence whether excisions >20 mm or surgical drains are linked to SSI. CONCLUSION: Local flaps, skin grafting, and severely contaminated surgical sites have a higher risk for SSI. Second intention healing and probably delayed wound closure are not associated with postoperative wound infection.

Patient-dependent risk factors for wound infection after skin surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Postoperative wound infection in dermatologic surgery causes impaired wound healing, poor cosmetic outcome and increased morbidity. Patients with a high-risk profile may benefit from perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The objective of this systematic review was to identify risk factors for surgical site infection after dermatologic surgery. In this article, we report findings on patient-dependent risk factors. The literature search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and trial registers. We performed meta-analysis, if studies reported sufficient data to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Study quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Seventeen observational studies that analysed 31213 surgical wounds were eligible for inclusion. Fourteen studies qualified for meta-analysis. Nine studies showed good, three fair and five poor methodological quality. The reported incidence of surgical site infection ranged from 0.96% to 8.70%. Meta-analysis yielded that male gender and immunosuppression were significantly associated with higher infection rates. There was a tendency towards a higher infection risk for patients with diabetes, without statistical significance. Meta-analysis did not show different infection rates after excision of squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma, but studies were substantially heterogenous. There was no significant association between risk for wound infection and smoking, age over 60 years, oral anti-aggregation or anti-coagulation or excision of malignant melanoma. In conclusion, the risk for surgical site infection in dermatologic surgery is low. Infection rates were increased significantly in male as well as immunosuppressed patients and non-significantly in diabetics.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with hidradenitis suppurativa.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused collateral damage to patients with acute and chronic conditions. In this mono-centre cross-sectional study, we sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). In June 2020, we sent an anonymous survey to 109 patients, who were diagnosed with HS in our outpatient clinic from May 2018 to April 2020. Fifty patients (45.9%) completed and returned the survey. Forty-five participants (90.0%) denied any cancellation of hospitalisation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitalisation was postponed in 8% of cases and cancelled in 2%. Compared to prior to the pandemic, fewer patients consulted their primary physician for changing wound dressings and more changed the dressings themselves or were assisted by their family members. 13% of patients avoided doctor visits due to fear of COVID-19 and 26.1% minimised doctor visits. The Dermatology Life Quality Index showed a moderate to very severe impact on patients' Quality of Life (mean score = 10.06). Only one patient used telemedicine. Due to limited access to primary care and fear of COVID-19, the pandemic had a detectable impact on the hospital management of patients with HS in our facility. Telemedicine still plays a negligible role in primary wound care.

Are Specific Body Sites Prone for Wound Infection After Skin Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors for wound infection may guide clinical practice for optimal use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence whether specific body sites have higher risks for surgical site infections (SSI). METHODS: The systematic literature search included MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registers. Only observational studies qualified for inclusion and meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 33,086 surgical wounds were eligible. Eight studies were of good, 4 of fair, and 6 of poor quality. The mean infection rate was 4.08%. Meta-analysis showed that the lips had significantly higher infection rates. The lower extremity and ears had or tended toward a higher risk for infection, but studies were clinically heterogeneous. A large prospective trial found that surgical wounds on the hands were at higher risk for infection. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate. The risk for SSI in other body locations was not different or remained uncertain because of substantial heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION: Lips, lower extremities, and probably ears and hands may have a higher risk for wound infection after skin surgery. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate.

Integrating Patient Data Into Skin Cancer Classification Using Convolutional Neural Networks: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have been witnessing a substantial improvement in the accuracy of skin cancer classification using convolutional neural networks (CNNs). CNNs perform on par with or better than dermatologists with respect to the classification tasks of single images. However, in clinical practice, dermatologists also use other patient data beyond the visual aspects present in a digitized image, further increasing their diagnostic accuracy. Several pilot studies have recently investigated the effects of integrating different subtypes of patient data into CNN-based skin cancer classifiers. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review focuses on the current research investigating the impact of merging information from image features and patient data on the performance of CNN-based skin cancer image classification. This study aims to explore the potential in this field of research by evaluating the types of patient data used, the ways in which the nonimage data are encoded and merged with the image features, and the impact of the integration on the classifier performance. METHODS: Google Scholar, PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect were screened for peer-reviewed studies published in English that dealt with the integration of patient data within a CNN-based skin cancer classification. The search terms skin cancer classification, convolutional neural network(s), deep learning, lesions, melanoma, metadata, clinical information, and patient data were combined. RESULTS: A total of 11 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All of them reported an overall improvement in different skin lesion classification tasks with patient data integration. The most commonly used patient data were age, sex, and lesion location. The patient data were mostly one-hot encoded. There were differences in the complexity that the encoded patient data were processed with regarding deep learning methods before and after fusing them with the image features for a combined classifier. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the potential benefits of integrating patient data into CNN-based diagnostic algorithms. However, how exactly the individual patient data enhance classification performance, especially in the case of multiclass classification problems, is still unclear. Moreover, a substantial fraction of patient data used by dermatologists remains to be analyzed in the context of CNN-based skin cancer classification. Further exploratory analyses in this promising field may optimize patient data integration into CNN-based skin cancer diagnostics for patients' benefits.

Impact of COVID-19 on wound care in Germany.

Recent studies showed that the COVID-19 pandemic caused collateral damage in health care in terms of reduced hospital submissions or postponed treatment of other acute or chronic ill patients. An anonymous survey was sent out by mail to patients with chronic wounds in order to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on wound care. Sixty-three patients returned the survey. In 14%, diagnostic workup or hospitalisation was cancelled or postponed. Thirty-six percent could not seek consultation by their primary care physician as usual. The use of public transport or long travel time was not related to limited access to medical service (P = .583). In ambulatory care, there was neither a significant difference in the frequency of changing wound dressings (P = .67), nor in the person, who performed wound care (P = .39). There were no significant changes in wound-specific quality of life (P = .505). No patient used telemedicine in order to avoid face-to-face contact or anticipate to pandemic-related restrictions. The COVID-19 pandemic impaired access to clinical management of chronic wounds in Germany. It had no significant impact on ambulatory care or wound-related quality of life. Telemedicine still plays a negligible role in wound care.

Laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective intervention for actinic keratosis and field cancerization. Ablative fractional lasers may facilitate the delivery of photosensitizers and thereby improve the effects of PDT. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of laser-assisted PDT. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature research in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and hand-searched pertinent trial registers for eligible randomized controlled trials. Results from individual studies were pooled by using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was estimated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the quality of evidence of the outcomes was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of 817 records initially identified, 7 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. Laser-assisted PDT showed significantly higher clearance rates than did PDT monotherapy (risk ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.42; I2 = 25%; P < .01). There was no difference in pain intensity between laser-assisted PDT and other interventions (mean difference, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, -0.12 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; P = .16). The included studies showed a high risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: The clinical heterogeneity of included studies. CONCLUSION: Laser-assisted PDT is more efficient but not more painful than PDT or laser treatment only.

Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for uveal melanoma (UM) is little established. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ICB in patients with UM. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature research covering MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Abstracts of pertinent conferences and trial registers were handsearched for relevant studies. RESULTS: Out of 1327 records initially identified, 12 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. They comprised 7 expanded access or named patient programs (n=162), 4 phase II trials (n=171), and 1 phase Ib trial (sample size unknown), while no randomized controlled trial was found. Ipilimumab monotherapy was assessed at 3mg/kg in 5 trials (n=186) with a response rate of 0 to 5%. Two reports investigated ipilimumab at 10mg/kg (n=45) with radiological responses observed in 0 to 6.5%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was below 3months and the median overall survival was 5.2-9.8months for ipilimumab monotherapy. Severe immune-related adverse events occurred at a frequency comparable to cutaneous melanoma (6 to 36%). Two studies investigated pembrolizumab (2mg/kg) and nivolumab (3mg/kg) with overall response rates of 30% and 6%, respectively. Data on combined ipilimumab and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition were available from one expanded access program, but no response was observed with a median PFS of 2.9months. CONCLUSIONS: UM is little responsive to ipilimumab regardless of dosage schemes. Sound randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined ICB in patients with UM.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to topical treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group, cross-over or within-patient design of topical treatments for people of all ages with scalp psoriasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. Disagreements were settled by reference to a third author.To assess the quality of evidence, we focused on the following outcomes: 'clearance' or 'response' as assessed by the investigator global assessment (IGA), improvement in quality of life, adverse events requiring withdrawal of treatment and 'response' as assessed by the patient global assessment (PGA).We expressed the results of the single studies as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. If studies were sufficiently homogeneous, we meta-analysed the data by using the random-effects model. Where it was not possible to calculate a point estimate for a single study, we described the data qualitatively. We also presented the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).We categorised topical corticosteroids according to the German classification of corticosteroid potency as mild, moderate, high and very high. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 RCTs with a total of 11,561 participants. Thirty studies were either conducted or sponsored by the manufacturer of the study medication. The risk of bias varied considerably among the included studies. For instance, most authors did not state the randomisation method and few addressed allocation concealment. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments, since most studies were conducted for less than six months. Only one trial investigated long-term therapy (12 months). Although we found a wide variety of different interventions, we limited the grading of the quality of evidence to three major comparisons: steroid versus vitamin D, two-compound combination of steroid and vitamin D versus steroid monotherapy and versus vitamin D.In terms of clearance, as assessed by the IGA, steroids were better than vitamin D (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.18; four studies, 2180 participants, NNTB = 8; 95% CI 7 to 11; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was superior to steroid monotherapy, however the additional benefit was small (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36; four studies, 2474 participants, NNTB = 17; 95% CI 11 to 41; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.78; four studies, 2008 participants, NNTB = 6; 95% CI 5 to 7; high quality evidence).In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the IGA, corticosteroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.41; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 4 to 5; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, but the additional benefit was small (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; three studies, 2444 participants, NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 24; moderate quality evidence). It was also more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.31; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.04; four studies, 2222 participants, NNTB = 3; 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate quality evidence).Reporting of quality of life data was poor and data were insufficient to be included for meta-analysis.Steroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.42; four studies, 2291 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination and steroid monotherapy did not differ in the number of adverse events leading withdrawal (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.88; three studies, 2433 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination led to fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; three studies, 1970 participants; high quality evidence). No study reported the type of adverse event requiring withdrawal.In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the PGA, steroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.72; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 5; 95% CI 5 to 7; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, however the benefit was not clinically important (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20; two studies, 2226 participants; NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 26; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.12; four studies, 2222 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 3 to 6; moderate quality evidence).Common adverse events with these three interventions were local irritation, skin pain and folliculitis. Systemic adverse events were rare and probably not drug-related.In addition to the results of the major three comparisons we found that the two-compound combination, steroids and vitamin D monotherapy were more effective than the vehicle. Steroids of moderate, high and very high potency tended to be similarly effective and well tolerated. There are inherent limitations in this review concerning the evaluation of salicylic acid, tar, dithranol or other topical treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two-compound combination as well as corticosteroid monotherapy were more effective and safer than vitamin D monotherapy. Given the similar safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the steroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical steroids may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy.Future RCTs should investigate how specific therapies improve the participants' quality of life. Long-term assessments are needed (i.e. 6 to 12 months).