Surgical site infection prevention and management in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review of the literature

Catena, Fausto; Improta, Mario; Cicuttin, Enrico; Catena, Fausto; Sartelli, Massimo; Bova, Raffaele; Angelis, Nicola De; Gitto, Stefano; Tartaglia, D.; Cremonini, Camilla; Ordóñez, Carlos A.; Baiocchi, Gian Luca; Chiarugi, Massimo

doi:10.1186/s13017-021-00375-y

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ovadia et al 35 also found similar infection rates between wound drainage and no drainage groups in a follow-up of 100 patients with postoperative scoliosis. The reasons for these outcomes are as follows: firstly, most new postoperative wound infections may be related to the aseptic operations of clinicians, patients' immune functions and postoperative care by nursing staff, [36][37][38] and cannot be solely attributed to the use of wound drainage; secondly, regardless of infection, as long as toxic substances are drained from the wound, promoting blood circulation and reducing the diffusion distance of oxygen and nutrients, wound healing can be accelerated, thus shortening the healing time. [39][40][41] This study has certain limitations: Firstly, the diseases included in the studies vary, resulting in differences in surgical methods and wound sizes; secondly, the number of studies included is small, which may introduce bias into the meta-analysis results, necessitating further large sample research in the future; third, in addition to evaluating objective indicators such as wound healing time and infection, other assessment criteria should be added to comprehensively evaluate the application value of wound drainage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of wound drainage on the wound infection and healing in patients undergoing spinal surgery: A meta‐analysis

Yang,

Bao,

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta‐analysis was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the impact of wound drainage on postoperative wound infection and healing in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Computer searches were performed, from database inception to October 2023, in EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for studies related to the application of wound drainage in spinal surgery. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and conducted quality assessments. Stata 17.0 software was employed for data analysis. Overall, 11 articles involving 2102 spinal surgery patients were included. The analysis showed that, compared to other treatment methods, the use of wound drainage in spinal surgery patients significantly shortened the wound healing time (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.35, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: −1.91 to −0.79, p < 0.001). However, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of wound infection (odds ratio: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.83–2.19, p = 0.226). This study indicates that wound drainage in patients undergoing spinal surgery is effective, can accelerate wound healing and is worth promoting in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of wound drainage on the wound infection and healing in patients undergoing spinal surgery: A meta‐analysis

Yang,

Bao,

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…47 Thus, health services must be able to prepare for well-timed action and mitigation strategies to prevent the catastrophes that have occurred following the outbreak of COVID-19, and to ensure medical intervention and care are available when needed, even in less critical cases. Furthermore, Coccolini and colleagues 48 state that resilient health systems must be built as part of pandemic preparedness, to promptly detect, assess, report, and respond to novel outbreaks. Pandemics cannot be controlled by science alone, with management requiring an integrated approach coordinating science, public outreach, and policy-makers to improve the control of public health emergencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute COVID-19, the Lived Experience, and Lessons to Learn for Future Pandemics

Owen,

Ashton,

Ferraro

et al. 2023

Disaster med. public health prep.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The study aimed to increase the understanding of the lived experience of patients during the acute phase of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Method: A Web-based survey was distributed through established patient and public engagement and involvement groups and networks, social media, and by means of word of mouth. The survey covered questions relating to patient demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, symptom profile, and patient experience during acute COVID-19. Results: The findings demonstrate the varying symptom profiles experienced by people in the acute stage of COVID-19 infection, with participants sharing how they managed care at home, and/or accessed medical advice. Findings also highlight themes that people were concerned with being unable to receive care and believed they needed to rely heavily on family, with extreme thoughts of death. Conclusions: Although the urgent threat to public health has been negated by efficacious vaccines and enhanced treatment strategies, there are key lessons from the lived experience of COVID-19 that should be used to prepare for future pandemics and public health emergencies.

show abstract

“…In comparison, the risk of a surgical site infection from open surgical fixation is approximately 1.07% in the U.S. in the healthy patient population, and increases with immunocompromised patients. [ 10 , 11 ]. Though minimal, the risk of infection from a minimally invasive injectable compound may be comparable to the risk of infection from open surgical fixation, and should still be taken into consideration.…”

Section: Implications Of the Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous bone adhesive application for Jones fracture “at-risk” of nonunion or delayed union: a hypothesis

Ahankoob

Stahel

2022

Patient Saf Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bone adhesives have been on the forefront of orthopedic surgery research for decades due to the potential benefit they may have in fracture management. Current publications and research being conducted on bone adhesive could be applied to our current hypothesis for the benefit of a novel minimally invasive treatment option for a select cohort of fractures, Jones fractures. The select fracture’s gold standard of treatment would be nonoperative, but with risk of complications including nonunion and delayed union. Presentation of hypothesis We hypothesize that percutaneous application of bone adhesive will provide an additional treatment option for fracture patterns that do not require operative fixation, but would benefit from additional stability. The primary outcome measures would be (1) duration of time required for bony consolidation (defined as 3 of 4 bridging cortices) and (2) duration of absenteeism (inability to work), and pain levels within the first week after the procedure. Secondary outcome measures would be the incidence of nonunion or delayed union. We hypothesize that the select bone adhesive would accelerate bony consolidation, decrease absenteeism, decrease pain levels within the first week after procedure, and decrease the incidence of delayed union and/or nonunion. Testing of hypothesis We propose a prospective multicenter, randomized, and open label trial clinical trial to test the bone adhesive via percutaneous injection into acute non-displaced or minimally displaced Jones fractures. Implications of hypothesis Bone adhesives are a new frontier in treatment of fractures, currently in laboratory and animal testing phases. The appropriate bone adhesive formula has not been approved for clinical trial use, but the implications of the bone adhesive may go beyond decreased complications and ease of stabilizing a select cohort of closed fractures. With the injectable compound illustrated (Fig. 1), the adhesive could be applied percutaneously in hopes of achieving improved outcomes compared to non-operative treatment. The overall goal of the clinical trial is to provide patients a safe treatment option for improved bone union rates of nonoperative fractures compared to the current gold standard management of the same fracture with earlier pain control, early bony consolidation and lower risk of delayed union/nonunion. The ideal patient population for use of a percutaneous bone adhesive in future studies would be for those with multiple medical comorbidities for whom surgical risks outweigh the benefits, in addition to patients at high risk for nonunion based on fracture pattern or systemic biology.

show abstract

Surgical site infection prevention and management in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review of the literature

Cited by 17 publications

References 71 publications

Effect of wound drainage on the wound infection and healing in patients undergoing spinal surgery: A meta‐analysis

Effect of wound drainage on the wound infection and healing in patients undergoing spinal surgery: A meta‐analysis

Acute COVID-19, the Lived Experience, and Lessons to Learn for Future Pandemics

Percutaneous bone adhesive application for Jones fracture “at-risk” of nonunion or delayed union: a hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About