Joan Webster1, Abdullah Alghamdi. 1. Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane andWomen’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Alexsander K Bressan; Derek J Roberts; Janet P Edwards; Sana U Bhatti; Elijah Dixon; Francis R Sutherland; Oliver Bathe; Chad G Ball Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Henrik Husted; Kirill Gromov; Henrik Malchau; Andrew Freiberg; Peter Gebuhr; Anders Troelsen Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 3.717