Topical antimicrobial treatment of mesh for the reduction of surgical site infections after hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Use of mesh is essential in hernia repair. A common complication after hernia repair is surgical site infection (SSI), which poses a risk in spreading to the mesh, possibly causing mesh infection. Topical antimicrobial pretreatment of mesh may potentially reduce SSI risk in hernia repair and has shown promising results in in vitro and in vivo studies. Clinical evidence, however, is more important. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of available clinical evidence for antimicrobial pretreated mesh in hernia repair surgery to reduce SSI. METHODS: We report in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to October 2023 for studies that investigated the use of antimicrobial pretreated mesh on SSI incidence in adults undergoing hernia repair. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. We also collected data on pathogen involvement, hernia recurrence, and mesh infection. A meta-analysis on SSI risk and GRADE-assessment was performed of eligible studies. RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies (n = 2660 patients); 5 randomized trials and 6 cohort studies. Investigated interventions included pre-coated mesh, antibiotic carriers, mesh soaked or irrigated with antibiotic or antiseptic solution. Meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in SSI for antibiotic pretreated polypropylene mesh (RR 0.76 [95% CI 0.27; 2.09]; I2 50%). CONCLUSION: Data on topical mesh pretreatment to reduce SSI risk after hernia repair is limited. Very low certainty evidence from randomized trials in hernia repair surgery shows no significant benefit for antibiotic mesh pretreatment for SSI reduction, but data are imprecise due to optimal information size not being met.

Watching a movie or listening to music is effective in managing perioperative anxiety and pain: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Despite the use of perioperative anxiolytics and pain medication, surgery can be a stressful and painful experience. Providing patients with distractions using video and/or audio tools in addition to medication may be helpful. To date, no studies have compared different distraction modalities in a same-day surgical setting in adults. This study aims to determine whether audio-visual distraction with video glasses (AVD) is more effective in reducing anxiety and pain compared to audio distraction (AD) in conscious patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. It was hypothesised that AVD, being the more immersive modality, would be more effective than AD on the outcome parameters. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery with local and/or regional anaesthesia in a clinical day-care setting were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-scenery AVD or patient-choice AD with music. Primary outcome was anxiety, as measured by the Dutch version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 (STAI-6) prior to and 15 min after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were pain (Numeric Rating Scale Pain [NRS-P]), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Within each group, there was a significant reduction in anxiety (p = 0.028 for AVD, p < 0.001 for AD). In contrast to our hypothesis, listening to music without watching a video (AD group) reduced anxiety significantly more than experiencing full AVD (p = 0.018). The mean pain score did not change significantly within either user group, nor did pain scores differ between user groups. CONCLUSION: In conscious patients undergoing surgery, watching a movie (using video glasses and a headphone set) and listening to music (using only a headphone set) are able to significantly reduce anxiety. AVD, although believed to provide higher levels of distraction, did not prove to be superior to AD. The clinical relevance of this study highlights the potential benefits of AVD or AD modalities in improving the surgical experience for conscious patients. Further research is required to examine the influence of freedom of choice in content on the aforementioned outcomes. To estimate the true value of higher immersion levels, different distraction modalities (e.g. AVD versus virtual reality) featuring the exact same scenery or content need to be compared. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.