Literature DB >> 32841576

Risk factors for surgical site infection after major oral oncological surgery: the experience of a tertiary referral hospital in China.

Menghan Shi1,2, Zhengxue Han1, Lizheng Qin1, Ming Su1, Yanbin Liu1, Man Li1, Long Cheng1, Xin Huang1, Zheng Sun2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with surgical site infection (SSI) after major oral oncological surgery.
METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed data from patients that underwent major surgery for oral cancer at a tertiary referral hospital in China between January 2005 and July 2016. SSI was diagnosed within 30 days. Demographic, cancer-related, preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for SSI.
RESULTS: A total of 786 patients were enrolled, of whom 125 had SSI (15.9%), which were all incisional. Independent risk factors for SSI, identified by multivariate analysis, were diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] 2.147, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.240, 3.642), prior radiotherapy (OR 4.595, 95% CI 1.293, 17.317) and oral-neck communication (OR 2.838, 95% CI 1.263, 7.604); and factors reflecting large extent resections were tracheostomy (OR 2.235, 95% CI 1.435, 3.525), anterolateral thigh flap (OR 1.971, 95% CI 1.103, 3.448) and latissimus dorsi flap (OR 4.178, 95% CI 1.325, 13.189).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors were associated with SSI after major oral oncological surgery. To minimize SSI risk, surgeons managing oral cancer patients should have a better understanding of the risk factors, including diabetes mellitus, prior radiotherapy, tracheostomy, oral-neck communication and flap reconstruction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Surgical site infection; major surgery; oral cancer; risk factor

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32841576      PMCID: PMC7463046          DOI: 10.1177/0300060520944072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Int Med Res        ISSN: 0300-0605            Impact factor:   1.671


Introduction

Surgical site infection (SSI), defined as an infection in a surgical wound within 30 days after the procedure, is a common postoperative complication of major oral oncological surgery.[1,2] Multiple factors contribute to the process of infection in which microbes interact with the host.[3] The incidence rate of SSI after major surgery was reported to range between 10% and 45% in oral cancer patients.[4-10] Clinical symptoms of SSI include tenseness, pain, fever, pus discharge and wound dehiscence.[11,12] Once SSI occurs, it delays healing and results in the postponement of adjuvant therapy administration, which may increase the risk of tumour recurrence and mortality rate.[13-15] Significant functional morbidities, such as language and swallowing dysfunction, poor cosmetic results and poor quality of life, may consequently occur.[15] Additionally, SSI prolongs hospitalization and increases healthcare expenditure.[15] Aseptic surgery and preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis are key measures for preventing SSI.[2,16,17] However, the incidence of SSI remains high, even if the principle of sterilization was strictly followed during the operation and antibiotics were preoperatively administered.[4-10] Unfortunately, there is still no consensus about the selection of antibiotics and the duration of antibiotic therapy. Therefore, identifying the risk factors for SSI is critical for developing proper preventive and therapeutic strategies. Many risk factors have been reported in previous studies. For example, diabetes mellitus, smoking, prior radiotherapy, prior surgery, prior chemotherapy, poor American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, hypoalbuminaemia, perioperative blood transfusion, tracheotomy, clean-contaminated wounds, length of preoperative hospital stay, lymph node metastasis and reconstruction with myocutaneous flaps or microvascular-free flaps were observed to be associated with SSI.[8,9,13,15,18,19] However, due to the differences in study design, patient population and sample size, some discrepancies remain in the literature. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with SSI after major surgery for oral cancer through a retrospective study of cases within 11 years at a tertiary referral hospital in China.

Patients and methods

Patient population and study design

This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients that underwent major surgery for oral cancer in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Beijing Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China between January 2005 and July 2016. All patients received perioperative antibiotic therapy and had their surgical sites were disinfected with povidone-iodine. All surgeries were performed by the same group of qualified oral surgeons (Z.H., L.Q. & X.H.) with at least 10 years of experience in this field. Surgical procedures included the following: excision of the tumour, neck dissection, and flap reconstruction, if required. In some cases, two or more of these procedures may have been simultaneously performed. The flaps were used to reconstruct tissue defects arising from tumour resection. In our institute, surgeons commonly utilize a radial forearm flap for small soft tissue defects and an anterolateral thigh flap for large soft tissue defects. Patients undergoing mandibulectomies for large mandibular defects underwent fibula osteoseptocutaneous flap reconstructions. Latissimus dorsi flap and pectoralis major pedicled flap were used only when the condition of the commonly preferred flap was poor or flap necrosis was observed. The pectoralis major flap was the only pedicled flap; all others were free flaps. All wounds were categorized into Class I to Class IV according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Surgical Wound Classification.[20,21] This study exclusively included Class I (clean) and Class II (clean-contaminated) wounds; Class III (contaminated) and Class IV (dirty-infected) wounds were excluded. Patients whose medical records were incomplete were also excluded. This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles, including those of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2002 version). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Beijing Stomatological Hospital (no. CMUSH-IRB-KJ-YJ-2017-11). Written or verbal consent was obtained from all study participants or their legally authorized representatives.

Study outcomes

Patients were assigned to the following two groups: those with SSI and those without SSI. According to the CDC National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system and Johnson’s criteria, SSI was defined as an infection related to an operative procedure, occurring at or near the surgical incision site within 30 days after the procedure.[11,22-25] Superficial or deep incisional SSI was diagnosed if there was purulent drainage from the incision, spontaneous wound dehiscence, a wound that required opening by surgeons because of signs or symptoms of infection (pain, tenderness, localized swelling, redness or heat) or a positive result from the bacterial culture of the drainage fluid. Space SSI was diagnosed if there was purulent discharge from drains or an abscess without evidence of anastomotic leakage. From medical records, the following five types of clinical data were collected: demographic data, cancer-related data, preoperative assessment, perioperative assessment and postoperative assessment. The clinical endpoint was the diagnosis of SSI within 30 days after surgery.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A two-sided Fisher’s exact test was used to analyse the differences between categorical variables, whereas the Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare continuous variables (age, body mass index [BMI], preoperative hospital stay, operation time, intravenous fluid, blood loss, 4-day drainage). Based on the World Health Organization recommendation in Asian populations, the BMI categories were defined as follows: underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5–23.0 kg/m2) and overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2).[26] Preoperative laboratory test results of blood cell analyses were defined according to parameters issued by the Ministry of Health of China in 2012 as follows: red blood cells (RBC) (men: normal ≥ 4.3–≤ 5.8 × 1012 per l, low < 4.3 × 1012 per l, high > 5.8 × 1012 per l; women: normal ≥ 3.8–≤ 5.1 × 1012 per l, low < 3.8 × 1012 per l, high > 5.1 × 1012 per l); white blood cells (WBC) (normal ≥ 3.5–≤ 9.5 × 109 per l, low < 3.5 × 109 per l, high > 9.5 × 109 per l); haemoglobin (men: normal ≥ 130–≤175 g/l, low < 130 g/l, high > 175 g/l; women: normal ≥ 115–≤150 g/l, low < 115 g/l, high > 150 g/l); albumin (normal ≥ 40–≤55 g/l, low < 40 g/l, high > 55 g/l). A forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify the independent risk factors associated with SSI. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of 786 patients that underwent major surgery for oral cancer, 125 (15.90%) developed SSI, which were all incisional SSI. As shown in Table 1, the most common pathological diagnosis was epidermoid carcinoma (n = 735, 93.51%). There were 387 patients (49.24%) with lymph node metastasis. Primary tumours were localized in the tongue (n = 305, 38.80%), gingiva (n = 199, 25.32%) and buccal region (n = 112, 14.25%). However, no association was found between pathological diagnosis, metastasis or tumour site and SSI on univariate analysis.
Table 1.

Tumour characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI).

Characteristic
SSI (+) n = 125

SSI (–) n = 661

Total n = 786
n % n % n %
Pathological diagnosis
 Epidermoid carcinoma11995.2061693.1973593.51
 Adenocarcinoma54.00274.08324.07
 Mesenchymal carcinoma10.8091.36101.27
 Melanoma00.0060.9160.76
 Ameloblastic carcinoma00.0030.4530.38
Lymph node metastasis
 Yes6451.2032348.8738749.24
 No6148.8033851.1339950.76
Tumour site
 Tongue4838.4025738.8830538.80
 Gingiva3024.0016925.5719925.32
 Buccal1612.809614.5211214.25
 Floor of mouth1814.40497.41678.52
 Jawbone64.80395.90455.73
 Lips00.00162.42162.04
 Palate10.80131.97141.78
 Submandibular21.6060.9181.02
 Retromolar region21.6060.9181.02
 Oropharynx10.8060.9170.89
 Parotid gland10.8040.6150.64

No association was found between pathological diagnosis, lymph node metastasis or tumour site and SSI on univariate analysis (P ≥ 0.05); two-sided Fisher’s exact test.

Tumour characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI). No association was found between pathological diagnosis, lymph node metastasis or tumour site and SSI on univariate analysis (P ≥ 0.05); two-sided Fisher’s exact test. The analysis of demographic data showed positive associations between the male sex (P = 0.038), age (≤58.5 years, P = 0.016) and diabetes mellitus (P = 0.008) with SSI (Table 2). Other patient-related factors, such as BMI, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and other comorbidities, were not significantly associated with SSI.
Table 2.

Demographic characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI).

Characteristic
SSI (+) n = 125

SSI (–) n = 661

Total n = 786
n % n % n %Statistical analysis[a],b
SexP = 0.038[a]
 Male8467.2037757.0346158.65
 Female4132.8028442.9732541.35
Mean age, yearsP = 0.016b
 ≤58.58164.8037055.9845157.38
 >58.54435.2029144.0233542.62
Body mass index, kg/m2NS
 18.5–23.03931.2022734.3426633.84
 <18.586.40233.48313.94
 ≥237862.4041162.1848962.21
SmokingNS
 Yes4435.2019729.8024130.66
 No8164.8046470.2054569.34
AlcoholNS
 Yes3225.614421.7917622.39
 No9374.451778.2161077.61
HypertensionNS
 Yes3528.0020731.3224230.79
 No9072.0045468.6854469.21
Diabetes mellitusP = 0.008[a]
 Yes2520.007311.049812.47
 No10080.0058888.9668887.53
Cardiovascular diseaseNS
 Yes1310.408212.419512.09
 No11289.6057987.5969187.91
HyperlipidaemiaNS
 Yes00.0081.2181.02
 No125100.0065398.7977898.98
Pulmonary diseaseNS
 Yes21.60182.72202.54
 No12398.4064397.2876697.46
Gastrointestinal diseaseNS
 Yes32.4040.6170.89
 No12297.6065799.3977999.11
Cerebrovascular diseaseNS
 Yes43.20203.03243.05
 No12196.8064196.9776296.95
Liver diseaseNS
 Yes54.00213.18263.31
 No12096.0064096.8276096.69
Thyroid diseaseNS
 Yes10.8050.7660.76
 No12499.2065699.2478099.24

aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05).

Demographic characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI). aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05). Three preoperative factors were positively correlated with SSI, namely prior radiotherapy (P = 0.001), weight loss ≥ 10% within 6 months prior to surgery (P = 0.006) and preoperative hospital stay > 9 days (P = 0.049) (Table 3). Prior chemotherapy, teeth cleaning, prior surgery for the same cancer, preoperative immunosuppression and preoperative laboratory test results (e.g. RBC count, WBC count, haemoglobin and albumin) were not significantly associated with SSI.
Table 3.

Preoperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI).

Characteristic
SSI (+) n = 125

SSI (–) n = 661

Total n = 786
n % n % n %Statistical analysis[a],b
Prior radiotherapyP = 0.001[a]
 Yes75.6050.76121.53
 No11894.4065699.2477498.47
Prior chemotherapyNS
 Yes4636.8019128.9023730.15
 No7963.2047071.1054969.85
Teeth cleaningNS
 Yes2116.8013921.0316020.36
 No10483.2052278.9762679.64
Previous surgery for the same neoplasiaNS
 Yes1915.2011116.7913016.54
 No10684.8055083.2165683.46
Weight loss ≥ 10% in previous 6 monthsP = 0.006[a]
 Yes97.20142.12232.93
 No11692.8064797.8876397.07
ImmunosuppressionNS
 Yes00.0020.3020.25
 No125100.0065999.7078499.75
Mean preoperative hospital stay, daysP = 0.049b
 ≤97358.4041763.0949062.34
 >95241.6024436.9129637.66
Red blood cell countNS
 Normal9374.4049875.3459175.19
 Low3225.6015022.6918223.16
 High00.00131.97131.65
White blood cell countNS
 Normal11088.0059590.0270589.69
 Low54.00213.18263.31
 High108.00456.81557.00
HaemoglobinNS
 Normal9878.4054282.0064081.42
 Low2419.2010616.0413016.54
 High32.40131.97162.04
AlbuminNS
 Normal7156.8041562.7848661.83
 Low5443.2024336.7629737.79
 High00.0030.4530.38

aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05).

Preoperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI). aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05). Regarding perioperative factors (Table 4), length of surgical procedure > 390 min (P < 0.001), intravenous infusion > 3500 ml (P < 0.001), blood loss > 500 ml (P < 0.001), blood transfusion (P = 0.007) and tracheostomy (P < 0.001) were associated with an increased incidence of SSI. Among these 786 patients, 443 (56.36%) underwent tumour excision with neck dissection and flap reconstruction. Type of operation, type of flap reconstruction, the extent of jawbone resection and oral–neck communication were all significantly associated with SSI (P < 0.001 for each comparison). However, the type of neck dissection was not a significant factor. Moreover, plate reconstruction (343 patients, 43.64%; P < 0.001) and clean-contaminated wound (706 patients, 89.82%; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with higher rates of SSI on univariate analysis.
Table 4.

Perioperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI).

Characteristic
SSI (+) n = 125

SSI (–) n = 661

Total n = 786
n % n % n %Statistical analysis[a],b
Mean operation time, minP < 0.001b
 ≤3903628.8033851.1337447.58
 >3908971.2032348.8741252.42
Mean intravenous liquid, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤35004435.2038658.4043054.71
 >35008164.8027541.6035645.29
Mean blood loss, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤5004939.2042063.5446959.67
 >5007660.8024136.4631740.33
TransfusionP = 0.007[a]
 Yes1310.40274.08405.09
 No11289.6063495.9274694.91
TracheostomyP < 0.001[a]
 Yes8668.8026039.3334644.02
 No3931.2040160.6744055.98
Type of operationP < 0.001[a]
 Unilateral neck dissection10.80619.23627.89
 Bilateral neck dissection10.8050.7660.76
 Tumour excision with flap  reconstruction10.8050.7660.76
 Tumour excision with neck  dissection2520.0024436.9126934.22
 Tumour excision with neck  dissection and flap  reconstruction9777.6034652.3444356.36
Neck dissectionNS
 No10.8040.6150.64
 Selective10886.4057086.2367886.26
 Modified32.40192.87222.80
 Radical86.40324.84405.09
 Bilateral54.00365.45415.22
Flap reconstructionP < 0.001[a]
 No2721.6031247.2033943.13
 Radial forearm flap2923.2016224.5119124.30
 Fibula osteoseptocutaneous flap3225.6011517.4014718.70
 Anterolateral thigh flap2318.40507.56739.29
 Latissimus dorsi flap86.4071.06151.91
 Pectoralis major pedicled flap64.80152.27212.67
Plate reconstructionP < 0.001[a]
 Yes7963.2026439.9434343.64
 No4636.8039760.0644356.36
Extent of jawbone resectionP < 0.001[a]
 No2520.0027241.1529737.79
 Block mandibulectomy118.808212.419311.83
 Marginal mandibulectomy2520.009113.7711614.76
 Segmental mandibulectomy3225.608412.7111614.76
 Mandibulotomy2923.207711.6510613.49
 Infrastructure maxillectomy00.0030.4530.38
 Hemimandibulectomy21.60314.69334.20
 Subtotal maxillectomy10.80203.03212.67
 Total mandibulectomy00.0010.1510.13
Oral–neck communicationP < 0.001[a]
 Yes11995.2053180.3365082.70
 No64.8013019.6713617.30
Wound classP = 0.010[a]
 Clean54.007511.358010.18
 Clean-contaminated12096.0058688.6570689.82

aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test ; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05).

Perioperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI). aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test ; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05). After surgery, significant associations were observed between SSI and the following characteristics: post-surgical hyperglycaemia (P = 0.033), flap failure (P < 0.001) and 4-day drainage (P < 0.001) (Table 5).
Table 5.

Postoperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI).


SSI (+) n = 125

SSI (–) n = 661

Total n = 786
Characteristic n % n % n %Statistical analysis[a],b
HaematomasNS
 Yes75.60233.48303.82
 No11894.4063896.5275696.18
Corticosteroid useNS
 Yes11793.6061292.5972992.75
 No86.40497.41577.25
Post-surgical hyperglycaemiaP = 0.033[a]
 Yes1713.60497.41668.40
 No10886.4061292.5972091.60
Flap failureP < 0.001[a]
 Yes129.60284.24405.09
 No11390.4063395.7674694.91
Other infectionsNS
 No12398.4064697.7376997.84
 Pneumonia21.6071.0691.15
 Urinary tract infection00.0040.6140.51
 Upper respiratory infection00.0040.6140.51
Mean drainage of day 1, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤2006048.0045068.0851064.89
 >2006552.0021131.9227635.11
Mean drainage of day 2, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤1005241.6038958.8544156.11
 >1007358.4027241.1534543.89
Mean drainage of day 3, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤807963.2053280.4861177.74
 >804636.8012919.5217522.26
Mean drainage of day 4, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤306451.2038758.5545157.38
 >306148.8027441.4533542.62
Mean total drainage of 4 days, mlP < 0.001b
 ≤3805140.8039359.4644456.49
 >3807459.2026840.5434243.51

aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05).

Postoperative characteristics in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer that were grouped according to the development of surgical site infection (SSI). aTwo-sided Fisher’s exact test; bMann–Whitney U-test; NS, no significant association (P ≥ 0.05). Forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that independent risk factors for SSI were diabetes mellitus (odd ratio [OR] 2.147, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.240, 3.642), prior radiotherapy (OR 4.595, 95% CI 1.293, 17.317), tracheostomy (OR 2.235, 95% CI 1.435, 3.525), perioperative oral–neck communication (OR 2.838, 95% CI 1.263, 7.604), reconstruction with an anterolateral thigh flap (OR 1.971, 95% CI 1.103, 3.448) and reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap (OR 4.178, 95% CI 1.325, 13.189) (Table 6).
Table 6.

Forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis of independent risk factors for surgical site infection in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer.

Risk factorsP-valueOdds ratio95% confidence interval
Diabetes mellitusP = 0.0052.1471.240, 3.642
Prior radiotherapyP = 0.0184.5951.293, 17.317
TracheostomyP < 0.0012.2351.435, 3.525
Oral–neck communicationP = 0.0212.8381.263, 7.604
Anterolateral thigh flapP = 0.0191.9711.103, 3.448
Latissimus dorsi flapP = 0.0134.1781.325, 13.189
Forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis of independent risk factors for surgical site infection in patients (n = 786) that underwent major surgery for oral cancer.

Discussion

Surgical site infection, as a serious complication after major surgery for oral cancer, causes delays in wound healing and adjuvant therapy, increases the chance of cancer recurrence and postoperative mortality, increases the expenditure of treatment and reduces the quality of life.[15] In order to prevent SSI, it is critical to identify potential risk factors and take adequate preventive measures. However, many factors, such as different study population, sample size and research methodology, have contributed to discrepancies in previous research on the risk factors for SSI.[8-10,13,15,18,19,27] There is a need to study specific patient populations. This current study focused on patients that underwent major surgery for oral cancer, including cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx, submandibular region and parotid gland. However, cancers in the larynx, thyroid, skin and other head and neck regions were excluded. In this current study population, the incidence of SSI was 15.9% and all were incisional SSI. Diabetes mellitus has been identified as a risk factor for SSI by several studies using univariate analyses,[15,28] multivariate analyses[18] and meta-analyses.[29] In this current study, diabetes mellitus was demonstrated to be an independent risk factor for SSI. With multivariate analysis, the risk of developing SSI in patients with diabetes mellitus increased more than two-fold compared with those without diabetes mellitus. It is well established that diabetes mellitus causes microvasculopathy and immunosuppression, which interfere with wound healing.[30,31] As such, the 2017 CDC guideline for the prevention of SSI recommends the implementation of perioperative glycaemic control with a blood glucose target level < 200 mg/dl for patients with or without diabetes mellitus.[20,32] Patients that underwent prior radiotherapy had a 58.33% (seven of 12 patients) chance of developing SSI in this current study, suggesting that prior radiotherapy is an independent risk factor for SSI. This observation was consistent with that of previous studies.[5,15,33,34] As an adjuvant therapy for oral cancer, radiotherapy eliminates cancerous cells but also damages healthy cells, leading to problems with wound healing.[14] These side-effects from radiation-induced DNA mutations, microvascular damage and soft tissue fibrosis reduce collagen deposition and angiogenesis during wound healing.[14,15] Adverse effects tend to be protracted.[35] A previous study reported radiation complications associated with additional surgery later than 1 week after the initial reconstructive surgery.[35] This finding suggested that SSI, which results in the need to reopen the wound, should be identified as soon as possible to minimize radiation complications.[35] Tracheostomy is often used for patients with oral cancer to prevent asphyxia due to airway obstruction during or after surgery. Many previous investigations have shown that tracheostomy is significantly associated with SSI.[13,15,27,36] In this current study, patients that underwent tracheostomy were two-times more likely to experience SSI than those that did not. Potential contamination through tracheostomy may occur as a result of the exposure of the surgical wound to the skin or a permanent communication between the respiratory tract and the wound. Polymicrobial flora of the upper aerodigestive tract secretions that collect around a tracheostomy tube postoperatively may cause infection of neck wounds.[12,22,37,38] In addition, tracheostomy tends to be used with a large oral cavity resection combined with mandibulotomy, indicating a complicated surgical process. Similarly, it tended to be involved in the formation of oral–neck communication, as mentioned below, increasing SSI incidence. As a result of en bloc resection of the primary tumour and related lymphadenopathies, oral–neck communication has been proposed as a risk factor for SSI in the literature.[39] When the tumour involves the mouth floor, lower gingiva, the base of the tongue and unsafe lymph nodes in layers of the mouth floor musculature, the removal of mouth floor musculatures and lymphatic basins during the resection procedures results in a through-and-through defect connecting the oral cavity and neck. This orocutaneous communication is different from a fistula; it is surgically created for therapeutic reasons during the operation. These current data supported oral–neck communication as a significant risk factor for SSI. The incidence of SSI in patients with oral–neck communication was as high as 18.31% (119 of 650 patients) and multivariate analysis indicated that patients with oral–neck communication were approximately three-times more likely to develop SSIs than those without it. Perioperative oral–neck communication facilitates the growth of microorganisms in the oral cavity and upper aerodigestive tract in a clean dissected neck, to generate postoperative SSI if the patient is unprotected by empiric prophylactic antibiotics. Flap reconstruction is frequently needed in oral cancer because of the resulting tissue defect after radical resection. In this current study, 43.13% (339 of 786 patients) underwent primary closure and all others received flap reconstructions. The most frequently used flap in this current study was a radial forearm flap, with fibula osteoseptocutaneous flap as the second and anterolateral thigh flap as the third. Previous literature reported that the frequency of SSI after reconstruction with a microvascular flap ranged from 26% to 48%.[40,41] In this current study, latissimus dorsi flaps had the highest incidence of SSI (53.33%; eight of 15 patients), with anterolateral thigh flaps (31.51%; 23 of 73 patients) and pectoralis major flaps (28.57%; six of 21 patients) coming second and third, respectively. Even with multiple logistic regression modelling, flap reconstruction remained significantly related to SSI, and both anterolateral thigh and latissimus dorsi flaps were independent risk factors for SSI. Flap reconstruction often indicates a complex procedure, long surgery time, large tissue defect and high blood loss, which may all contribute to SSI.[42] In our institute, reconstruction using latissimus dorsi flaps usually requires the turning over of patients to prepare the flaps. Consequently, this prolongs the duration of surgery and increases blood loss and the chances of SSI occurrence. Previous research demonstrated a novel technique of harvesting the subscapular system of flaps, as well as latissimus dorsi flaps.[43] The authors used a supine position to prepare and drape, and the patient’s arm was propped up using a bolster without the need for the patient to be rotated.[43] Ablation and harvesting can be simultaneously performed in this modified supine position to reduce the surgery time, thereby ensuring a low chance of developing SSI; however, the disadvantage is that it requires a two-team approach simultaneously.[43] Paradoxically, the univariate analysis revealed that younger patients (≤58.5 years) were more likely to develop SSI than older ones (>58.5 years). This may be because older patients tend to experience systemic comorbidities, and consequently, are more likely to be excluded from surgery. This current study had two limitations: (i) when patients were further classified into various categories, the sample size was occasionally insufficient in the subgroups to allow the generation of statistically powerful conclusions; (ii) some patients were excluded from this study due to incomplete medical record information. In conclusion, several independent risk factors for SSI were identified among patients undergoing major surgery for oral cancer. These current data indicate that patients that have diabetes mellitus or underwent prior radiotherapy, tracheostomy, perioperative oral–neck communication caused by surgery and flap reconstruction were more susceptible to SSI. Therefore, patients with these risk factors may require close postoperative monitoring for possible SSI. In theory, better management of these risk factors would improve the surgical outcome for patients with oral cancer.
  42 in total

Review 1.  Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-01-10       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Surgical site infections.

Authors:  Philip S Barie; Soumitra R Eachempati
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 3.  Radiotherapy and wound healing.

Authors:  Emma-Louise Dormand; Paul E Banwell; Timothy E E Goodacre
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.315

4.  Risk factors for wound infection after surgery in primary oral cavity cancer patients.

Authors:  Shih-An Liu; Yong-Kie Wong; Chiu-Kwan Poon; Chen-Chi Wang; Ching-Ping Wang; Kwong-Chung Tung
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Risk factors for surgical-site infections in head and neck cancer surgery.

Authors:  Carlos Jorge Lotfi; Rita de Cássia Cavalcanti; Adriana Maria Costa e Silva; Maria do Rosário Dias de Oliveira Latorre; Karina de Cássia Braga Ribeiro; André Lopes Carvalho; Luiz Paulo Kowalski
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.497

6.  Contamination of the surgical field in head and neck oncologic surgery.

Authors:  Maciej J Mazurek; Maciej Rysz; Janusz Jaworowski; Filip Nowakowski; Romuald Krajewski; Stanisław Starościak; Marek Pietras; Hanna Polowniak-Pracka; Artur Włodarczyk
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 3.147

7.  Update to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection (2017): A summary, review, and strategies for implementation.

Authors:  Lyndsay M O'Hara; Kerri A Thom; Michael Anne Preas
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.918

8.  Risk factors of surgical site infection in patients undergoing major oncological surgery for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Dong Hwan Lee; Sang Yoon Kim; Soon Yuhl Nam; Seung-Ho Choi; Jong Woo Choi; Jong-Lyel Roh
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 5.337

9.  Risk factors of postoperative infection in head and neck surgery.

Authors:  Hitomi Ogihara; Kazuhiko Takeuchi; Yuichi Majima
Journal:  Auris Nasus Larynx       Date:  2008-12-25       Impact factor: 1.863

10.  A predictive model for wound sepsis in oncologic surgery of the head and neck.

Authors:  R R Cole; K T Robbins; J I Cohen; P F Wolf
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.497

View more
  3 in total

1.  Risk factors for surgical site infection in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Chengwen Gan; Yannan Wang; Yan Tang; Kai Wang; Bincan Sun; Mengxue Wang; Feiya Zhu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  Surgical wound classification in otolaryngology: A state-of-the-art review.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Bernstein; David J Bracken; Shira R Abeles; Ryan K Orosco; Philip A Weissbrod
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-04-18

3.  Analysis of the Validity of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Maxillofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Iwona Niedzielska; Marcin Kotowski; Anna Mertas; Michał Bąk; Szczepan Barnaś; Damian Niedzielski
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 4.964

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.