Use of plastic adhesive skin drapes in cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access port (TIVAP) placement-a randomized controlled pilot study.

PURPOSE: A totally implantable vascular access port (TIVAP) is commonly required in cancer patients. Possible adverse events after TIVAP implantation include surgical site infection (SSI) and port-related bacteremia. This study examined whether adhesive surgical drapes can reduce the risk of SSI. METHODS: A total of 100 mostly cancer patients were randomized into two groups before undergoing TIVAP implantation by surgical cut-down. In one group, an adhesive, non-impregnated drape was applied to the skin prior to incision, while the control group underwent surgery without a drape. Swabs were taken from the surgical site and sent for microbiologic testing. SSI rates were compared between groups. RESULTS: No SSI occurred within 30 days after surgery. In each group, two patients died. There were 5 complications (port thrombosis, port dislocation, two cases of pneumothorax, skin allergy), all in the intervention group (p = 0.056). Using the incision drape prolonged procedure time by + 5 min (95% CI - 1 to + 10, p = 0.125). Microbiologic swab testing failed to detect any effect of the incision drape. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic adhesive skin drapes may be unnecessary in cancer patients who undergo surgical implantation of a TIVAP.

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach, but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 July 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 2, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 18, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to Week 28, 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to July 6, 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this third update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Skin avulsion injuries with use of adhesive surgical drapes.

Iodophor-impregnated adhesive drapes are commonly used to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI).While proper and discretionary use of drapes can provide significant benefit, there are potential risks. We present two cases of degloving injuries sustained from use of these drapes during total knee arthroplasty. The patients, deemed high risk for potential skin avulsion injuries, received standard wound care and close follow-up which resulted in healing of the lesions at 6-week follow-up.