Evelina Tacconelli1, Niklas F Müller, Sebastian Lemmen, Nico T Mutters, Stefan Hagel, Elisabeth Meyer. 1. German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University Hospital Tübingen, Division of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, Department of. Internal Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology, University Hospital of Leipzig, Central Department of Hospital Hygiene and Infectiology, Aachen University Hospital, Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Center for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of hospital hygiene and infection prevention is to protect patients from preventable nosocomial infections. It was recently stated that the proper goal should be for zero infection rates in sterile surgical procedures. In this article, we attempt to determine whether this demand is supported by the available literature. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline and EMBASE databases for studies published in the last 10 years on the efficacy of infection control measures and carried out a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA tool. We used the following search terms: "aseptic surgery," "intervention," "surgical site infection," "nosocomial infection," "intervention," and "prevention." RESULTS: 2277 articles were retrieved, of which 204 were acquired in full text and analyzed. The quantitative analysis included 7 prospective cohort studies on the reduction of nosocomial infection rates after aseptic surgery. The measures used included training sessions, antibiotic prophylaxis, and operative-site disinfection and cleaning techniques. These interventions succeeded in reducing postoperative wound infections (relative risk (RR] 0.99 [0.98; 1.00]). Subgroup analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.99 [0.98; 1.01]) and noncontrolled trials (RR 0.97 [0.92; 1.02]) revealed small, insignificant effects. CONCLUSION: A multimodal approach with the participation of specialists from various disciplines can further reduce the rate of postoperative infection. A reduction to zero is not realistic and is not supported by available evidence.
BACKGROUND: The main objective of hospital hygiene and infection prevention is to protect patients from preventable nosocomial infections. It was recently stated that the proper goal should be for zero infection rates in sterile surgical procedures. In this article, we attempt to determine whether this demand is supported by the available literature. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline and EMBASE databases for studies published in the last 10 years on the efficacy of infection control measures and carried out a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA tool. We used the following search terms: "aseptic surgery," "intervention," "surgical site infection," "nosocomial infection," "intervention," and "prevention." RESULTS: 2277 articles were retrieved, of which 204 were acquired in full text and analyzed. The quantitative analysis included 7 prospective cohort studies on the reduction of nosocomial infection rates after aseptic surgery. The measures used included training sessions, antibiotic prophylaxis, and operative-site disinfection and cleaning techniques. These interventions succeeded in reducing postoperative wound infections (relative risk (RR] 0.99 [0.98; 1.00]). Subgroup analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.99 [0.98; 1.01]) and noncontrolled trials (RR 0.97 [0.92; 1.02]) revealed small, insignificant effects. CONCLUSION: A multimodal approach with the participation of specialists from various disciplines can further reduce the rate of postoperative infection. A reduction to zero is not realistic and is not supported by available evidence.
Authors: Silvia Nunes Szente Fonseca; Sônia Regina Melon Kunzle; Maria José Junqueira; Renata Teodoro Nascimento; José Ivan de Andrade; Anna S Levin Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2006-11
Authors: Judith Manniën; Marjo E E van Kasteren; Nico J Nagelkerke; Inge C Gyssens; Bart Jan Kullberg; Jan C Wille; Annette S de Boer Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Thomas Haustein; Petra Gastmeier; Alison Holmes; Jean-Christophe Lucet; Richard P Shannon; Didier Pittet; Stephan Harbarth Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Teresa M Kieser; M Sarah Rose; Uthman Aluthman; Marlene Montgomery; Thomas Louie; Israel Belenkie Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: E Tacconelli; M A Cataldo; S J Dancer; G De Angelis; M Falcone; U Frank; G Kahlmeter; A Pan; N Petrosillo; J Rodríguez-Baño; N Singh; M Venditti; D S Yokoe; B Cookson Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: J Molina-Cabrillana; A Chirino Cabrera; J P Rodríguez-Alvarez; R Navarro-Navarro; I López-Carrió; I Ojeda-García; M Bolaños-Rivero Journal: Rev Clin Esp Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.556
Authors: Julian-Camill Harnoss; Ojan Assadian; Markus Karl Diener; Thomas Müller; Romy Baguhl; Markus Dettenkofer; Lukas Scheerer; Thomas Kohlmann; Claus-Dieter Heidecke; Stephan Gessner; Markus Wolfgang Büchler; Axel Kramer Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Abdul Khairul Rizki Purba; Christian F Luz; Riyanti R Wulandari; Ieneke van der Gun; Jan-Willem Dik; Alex W Friedrich; Maarten J Postma Journal: Infect Drug Resist Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Josiah Bennett; Jack MacGuire; Ena Novakovic; Huey Huynh; Keri Jones; Julian L Gendreau; Antonios Mammis; Mickey E Abraham Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-06-09