A systematic review of the ASEPSIS scoring system used in non-cardiac-related surgery

Abstract

This review revealed that there are limited choices of scoring systems to assess different surgical sites for surgical wound infection. Currently, only the ASEPSIS scoring system is available, but it is not validated for use with non-sternal wounds. Therefore, it should be used cautiously when assessing non-cardiac surgical wound infection.

A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Wound Infection Methods: Predictive Values of the CDC, ASEPSIS, and Southampton Scoring Systems in Evaluating Breast Reconstruction Surgical Site Infections

“…7 Siah and Childs, via a systematic review of the ASEPSIS scoring system in non-cardiac-related surgery, found that its reliability level declined as the severity of infection worsened and therefore caution against its use outside of cardiac surgery. 16 In a study of 1029 surgical patients, an ASEPSIS score greater than 10 points was associated with a signifiant delay in discharge from the hospital and a score greater than 20 was more sensitive and as specific as the presence of pus as an indicator of infection. 17 Comparative analyses of wound scoring systems in other specialties have been done.…”

“…Additional points are awarded for antibiotic treatment, drainage of pus under local anesthesia, debridement of the wound under general anesthesia, isolation of bacteria, and stay as inpatient prolonged over 14 days. Scores are grouped into 4 categories: satisfactory healing (0-10), disturbance of healing (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20), minor SSI (21-30), moderate SSI (31-40), and severe SSI (>40). The original ASEPSIS score is meant to evaluate the surgical site for infections from day 5 to 7 postoperatively.…”

Thermal territories of the abdomen after caesarean section birth: infrared thermography and analysis

“…It is our hypothesis that surveillance of wounds must start early and before the appearance of purulent exudate; the hallmark of infection on clinical wound scoring systems. 22,23 Surgical site infection is a common complication which increases the risk of morbidity. In English hospitals participating in the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Service (NINSS) limb amputation (14.3%) and bowel surgery (10%) had the greatest incidence of SSI.…”

“…Currently there are a limited number of scoring systems for wound infection. 23 The CDC criteria, considered to be the gold standard, require the appearance of purulent exudate and microbiology findings for infection diagnosis. For surveillance of risk after caesarean section, these criteria occur as late events.…”

Tissue Adhesive for Wound Closure Reduces Immediate Postoperative Wound Dressing Changes After Primary TKA: A Randomized Controlled Study in Simultaneous Bilateral TKA

“…Thromboembolic prophylaxis is one such factor, because thromboembolic prophylaxis has been shown to increase wound discharge [13] and only short-duration thromboembolic prophylaxis during the hospital stay is used in our department, which might not be the case at other institutions. The ASEPSIS score, which we used as a secondary outcome, has been validated in several surgical procedures, but to our knowledge not in arthroplasty [3,24]. We only used the clinical part of the ASEPSIS score, because we only wanted to evaluate the clinical appearance of the wound.…”