Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2015, for this seventh update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the bibliographies of all retrieved and relevant publications. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials. We identified no new trials for this latest update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics. SEARCH METHODS: For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether disposable surgical face masks worn by the surgical team during clean surgery prevent postoperative surgical wound infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register on 23 October 2013; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included, involving a total of 2113 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics. SEARCH METHODS: For this second update we searched the The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 7 August 2012), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE  (1950 to July Week 4 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 06, 2012), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 31), EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 3 August 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for patients with hematologic malignancies who relapse following autologous transplantation: a multi-institutional prospective study from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB trial 100002).

We prospectively treated 80 patients with relapse of malignancy or secondary myelodysplasia after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) with allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT) using a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen of fludarabine 150 mg/m(2) plus intravenous busulfan 6.4 mg/kg. Both matched sibling (MSD) and unrelated donors (MUD) were allowed. Patients transplanted from MUD donors received more intensive graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, including rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) 10 mg/kg, mycophenolate mofetil, and an extended schedule of tacrolimus. With a median follow-up of 3.1 years (0.9-5.8), treatment-related mortality (TRM) at 6 months and 2 years was 8% and 23%, respectively. Neither TRM nor the rates of acute GVHD (aGVHD) were different in those with sibling or MUD donors. Donor CD3 cell chimerism >90% at day +30 was achieved more often in patients with MUD than with matched sibling donors, 70% versus 23% (P < .0001). Median event-free suvival was higher in patients who achieved early full donor chimerism (14.2 versus 8 months, P = .0395). Allo-HCT using this reduced-intensity conditioning regimen can be performed with low TRM in patients who have received a prior AHCT. Efforts to improve early donor CD3 chimerism may improve event-free survival.

Risk of Infection Associated With Ibrutinib in Patients With B-Cell Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: B-cell malignancies confer an increased risk of infection due to associated immune defects. Conflicting evidence exists on the risk of infection in patients receiving ibrutinib. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate relative risk of infection with ibrutinib in B-cell malignancies. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Union Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed through January 15, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing ibrutinib with other agents or placebo in B-cell malignancies. We pooled point estimates using the Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata/SE 15.1. RESULTS: Seven studies randomizing 2167 patients were included in the final analysis. Treatment duration in studies ranged from 9.4 to 38.7 months. Ibrutinib was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection (any grade and grade 3-5) in patients with B-cell malignancies [pooled risk ratio (RR) = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.69, P = .015; and RR = 1.35, 95% CI, 1.05-1.74, P = .018, respectively]. In patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a significantly increased risk of grade 3-5 infection was noted in the ibrutinib group [pooled RR = 1.24, 95% CI, 1.02-1.50, P = .028]. Incidences of pneumonia and upper respiratory tract infection were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis found that ibrutinib was associated with significantly higher risk of infections in patients with B-cell malignancies. Occurrence of major individual subtypes was not different between groups, possibly as a result of inconsistent reporting across studies.

Building healthy public policy.

Policies in literacy and health need to address two perspectives: how basic literacy skills influence the health of populations and individuals; and health literacy--the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions. There are three potential areas for action to improve literacy and health literacy: the health system, the education system, and within the broader sphere of culture and society. Despite some increasing attention in the last 20 years, low literacy levels remain a major problem in Canada. Policies need to be sensitive to culture, especially among Aboriginal peoples, Francophones and new Canadians. Public policies are needed to: Improve literacy outcomes (for example, support for a pan-Canadian literacy strategy, early childhood education and family literacy programs, and efforts to reduce high school drop out). Improve health literacy (for example, support integrated policy and program development across sectors, integrated research and knowledge translation initiatives, and efforts to build links between literacy and health networks). Reduce disparities by strengthening levels of literacy and health literacy among vulnerable groups.

As the ship sails forth.

This concluding article comments on what we learned from the conference, what we still need to know, and what we need to do now. It describes what participants said about the impact of the conference and the follow-up steps that have been taken so far. In terms of what we learned, there was agreement on the importance of culture in understanding literacy and health literacy; the importance of context; the integral relationship between literacy and health literacy and the concept of "empowerment;" the value of efforts to improve health through literacy and health literacy; and the need for collaboration. We need more and better information on how our various efforts are working; the cost of low literacy; the links between health, education, and lifelong learning; the needs and strengths of Aboriginal people, and the perspectives of Francophone and ethnocultural groups. Specific topics worthy of pursuit are suggested. They are followed by a list of recommendations from the conference related to focussing on language and culture, and to building best practices, knowledge, and healthy public policy. The paper presents some findings from the conference evaluation, which suggests that the conference met its goals. It concludes by reporting on actions that have been taken to implement the conference recommendations, including the establishment of a Health Literacy Expert Committee and the submission of several funding proposals.

The National Patient Safety Agency and theatre practitioners.

Theatre practitioners have been involved in patient safety for years. Each time you check a patient into the department you are using a risk management tool: the check-list. Each time you check the position of a patient on the operating table, check their consent form, ensure the sterile field is maintained and that the instrument count is correct, you are intrinsically involved in patient safety.

Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets of microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound. Surgical face masks have recently been advocated as a protective barrier between the surgical team and the patient, but the role of the surgical face mask as an effective measure in preventing surgical wound infections is questionable. The aim of the systematic review is to identify and review all randomised controlled trials evaluating disposable surgical face masks worn by the surgical team during clean surgery to prevent postoperative surgical wound infection. All relevant publications about disposable surgical face masks were sought through the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (March 2001). Manufacturers and distributors of disposable surgical masks as well as professional organisations including the National Association of Theatre Nurses and the Association of Operating Room Nurses were contacted for details of unpublished and ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask were included. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group. Neither trial accounted for cluster randomisation in the analysis. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.

Preoperative antisepsis: critiquing a research article.

A critique of a research article on preoperative skin antisepsis was undertaken using a recognised framework. This critique drew out issues which may be of use for clinicians in making a judgement regarding implementing change into their clinical practice.

Ensuring correct site surgery.

Surgery at the wrong site is fortunately an infrequent event, but when it does happen the consequences can be devastating for the patient, their family and the surgical team. Wrong site surgery doesn't just refer to taking out the wrong organ, it is also includes such errors as making an incision on the wrong side, putting in a prosthesis the wrong way round, and administering a local anaesthetic block to the wrong side prior to the surgical procedure--for example an ophthalmic procedure under local anaesthetic. Ensuring the correct surgery is performed on the correct patient at the correct site is a key responsibility for the whole surgical team.

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery

BACKGROUND: Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether disposable surgical face masks worn by the surgical team during clean surgery prevent postoperative surgical wound infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 14 September 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to August Week 5 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process &Other Non-Indexed Citations September 13, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2011 Week 35); and EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 9 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included, involving a total of 2113 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.