Lisa Zhang1, Basheer Elsolh2, Sunil V Patel3. 1. Department of Surgery, Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart Street Victory 3, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada. lisa.zhang@queensu.ca. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart Street Victory 3, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in gastrointestinal surgery. Wound protection devices are being increasingly used in the attempt to reduce infection rates. We performed a meta-analysis to determine if wound protectors reduce the incidence of SSIs in lower gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched between 1946 and 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing wound protector versus no wound protector in lower gastrointestinal surgery were included. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Subgroup analysis was conducted comparing single-ring versus dual-ring wound protectors. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 3029 participants were included. There was a significant decrease in the odds of developing SSI in the wound protector group (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, P < 0.01, I 2 = 55%). There was evidence of a subgroup effect (P = 0.01) with dual-ring wound protectors associated with significantly lower incidence of SSIs (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.52, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 12%), which was not appreciated in the single-ring group (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.04, P = 0.11, I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Wound protector use is associated with decreased odds of developing SSI in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. There was a subgroup effect when comparing dual-ring to single-ring devices.
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in gastrointestinal surgery. Wound protection devices are being increasingly used in the attempt to reduce infection rates. We performed a meta-analysis to determine if wound protectors reduce the incidence of SSIs in lower gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched between 1946 and 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing wound protector versus no wound protector in lower gastrointestinal surgery were included. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Subgroup analysis was conducted comparing single-ring versus dual-ring wound protectors. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 3029 participants were included. There was a significant decrease in the odds of developing SSI in the wound protector group (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, P < 0.01, I 2 = 55%). There was evidence of a subgroup effect (P = 0.01) with dual-ring wound protectors associated with significantly lower incidence of SSIs (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.52, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 12%), which was not appreciated in the single-ring group (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.04, P = 0.11, I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Wound protector use is associated with decreased odds of developing SSI in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. There was a subgroup effect when comparing dual-ring to single-ring devices.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Martin Hübner; Michele Diana; Giorgio Zanetti; Marie-Christine Eisenring; Nicolas Demartines; Nicolas Troillet Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-07-18
Authors: André L Mihaljevic; Rebekka Schirren; Mine Özer; Stephanie Ottl; Sybille Grün; Christoph W Michalski; Mert Erkan; Carsten Jäger; Carolin Reiser-Erkan; Victoria Kehl; Tibor Schuster; Jürgen Roder; Ulf Clauer; Carolin Orlitsch; Tomas F Hoffmann; Reinhard Lange; Thomas Harzenetter; Phillip Steiner; Milena Michalski; Karl Henkel; Josef Stadler; Georg A Pistorius; Anja Jahn; Robert Obermaier; Robert Unger; Roland Strunk; Frank Willeke; Holger Vogelsang; Bert Halve; Karl-Heinz Dietl; Hendrik Hilgenstock; Alexander Meyer; Hans-Jörg Krämling; Markus Wagner; Michael H Schoenberg; Florian Zeller; Johannes Schmidt; Helmut Friess; Jörg Kleeff Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert L Smith; Jamie K Bohl; Shannon T McElearney; Charles M Friel; Margaret M Barclay; Robert G Sawyer; Eugene F Foley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jennifer Blumetti; Myda Luu; George Sarosi; Kathleen Hartless; Jackie McFarlin; Betty Parker; Sean Dineen; Sergio Huerta; Massimo Asolati; Esteban Varela; Thomas Anthony Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Thomas D Pinkney; Melanie Calvert; David C Bartlett; Adrian Gheorghe; Val Redman; George Dowswell; William Hawkins; Tony Mak; Haney Youssef; Caroline Richardson; Steven Hornby; Laura Magill; Richard Haslop; Sue Wilson; Dion Morton Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-07-31
Authors: Benjamin Wiesler; Jörn-Markus Gass; Carsten Th Viehl; Alexandra Müller; Jürg Metzger; Mark Hartel; Christian Nebiker; Robert Rosenberg; Raffaele Galli; Urs Zingg; Alex Ochsner; Lukas Eisner; Martina Pabst; Mathias Worni; Mark Henschel; Markus von Flüe; Markus Zuber; Marco von Strauss Und Torney Journal: Int J Surg Protoc Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Jaime Ruiz-Tovar; Marja A Boermeester; Liliana Bordeianou; George J Chang; Emre Gorgun; Christoph Justinger; Elise H Lawson; David J Leaper; Najjia N Mahmoud; Christopher Mantyh; Michael F McGee; Valentine Nfonsam; Ines Rubio-Perez; Elizabeth C Wick; Traci L Hedrick Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.532
Authors: Hussameldin M Nour; Amiya Ahsan; Dimitra V Peristeri; Samuelson E Osifo; Mr Krishna K Singh; Mr Muhammad S Sajid Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-09-15