RESUMO
Importance: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common postoperative complications and associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation is used to reduce the risk of SSIs, and there is great variation in the type of irrigation solutions and their use. Objective: To compare the outcomes of different types of incisional prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation for the prevention of SSIs in all types of surgery. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched up to June 12, 2023. Study Selection: Included in this study were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing incisional prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with no irrigation or comparing irrigation using different types of solutions, with SSI as a reported outcome. Studies investigating intracavity lavage were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This systematic review and network meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias within individual RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were reported. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary study outcome was SSI. Results: A total of 1587 articles were identified, of which 41 RCTs were included in the systematic review, with 17â¯188 patients reporting 1328 SSIs, resulting in an overall incidence of 7.7%. Compared with no irrigation, antiseptic solutions (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.81; high level of certainty) and antibiotic solutions (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.73; low level of certainty) were associated with a beneficial reduction in SSIs. Saline irrigation showed no statistically significant difference compared with no irrigation (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; moderate level of certainty). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and network meta-analysis found high-certainty evidence that prophylactic intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with antiseptic solutions was associated with a reduction in SSIs. It is suggested that the use of antibiotic wound irrigation be avoided due to the inferior certainty of evidence for its outcome and global antimicrobial resistance concerns.
RESUMO
Background: The evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and ambiguous. Implementation in daily practice is impaired by inconsistent recommendations in current international guidelines and published meta-analyses. More recently, multiple new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We aimed to provide an overview of all meta-analyses and their characteristics; to conduct a new and up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment; and to explore the additive value of new RCTs with a trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to October 24, 2022. We identified existing meta-analyses covering all surgical specialties and RCTs studying the effect of iNPWT compared with standard dressings in all types of surgery on the incidence of SSI, wound dehiscence, reoperation, seroma, hematoma, mortality, readmission rate, skin blistering, skin necrosis, pain, and adverse effects of the intervention. We calculated relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We assessed publication bias with a comparison-adjusted funnel plot. TSA was used to assess the risk of random error. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) tool and GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312995. Findings: We identified eight previously published general meta-analyses investigating iNPWT and compared their results to present meta-analysis. For the updated systematic review, 57 RCTs with 13,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis for SSI, yielding a RR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.76, I2 = 21%) for iNPWT compared with standard dressing. Certainty of evidence was high. Compared with previous meta-analyses, the RR stabilised, and the confidence interval narrowed. In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, confirming the robustness of the summary effect estimate from the meta-analysis. Interpretation: In this up-to-date meta-analysis, GRADE assessment shows high-certainty evidence that iNPWT is effective in reducing SSI, and uncertainty is less than in previous meta-analyses. TSA indicated that further trials are unlikely to change the effect estimate for the outcome SSI; therefore, if future research is to be conducted on iNPWT, it is crucial to consider what the findings will contribute to the existing robust evidence. Funding: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554. FINDINGS: Overall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I2=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups. INTERPRETATION: For adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed. FUNDING: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
