Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
/ therapeutic use
Chlorhexidine
/ therapeutic use
Double-Blind Method
Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
/ adverse effects
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Povidone-Iodine
/ therapeutic use
Preoperative Care
Surgical Wound Infection
/ prevention & control
Journal
JAMA surgery
ISSN: 2168-6262
Titre abrégé: JAMA Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
9
7
2020
medline:
7
2
2021
entrez:
9
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gynecological laparoscopies are one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. Limited evidence exists on rates of surgical site infections in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopies and strategies to prevent these infections. To compare rates of port-site infections, organ or space infections, and any type of surgical site infections among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies and received 1 of 3 types of skin preparation solutions. A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 28, 2017, and November 26, 2018, at a tertiary university-affiliated referral center. A total of 661 patients 18 years or older who underwent an elective operative laparoscopy for treatment of nonmalignant gynecological disorders were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to have their skin cleaned before surgery with alcohol-based chlorhexidine, alcohol-based povidone-iodine, or water-based povidone-iodine. Statistical analysis was performed from February 28, 2017, to November 26, 2018. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. A total of 221 patients were randomized to have their skin prepared preoperatively with water-based povidone-iodine, 220 were randomized to alcohol-based povidone-iodine, and 220 were randomized to alcohol-based chlorhexidine. The patients were blinded to the solution used to clean their skin. Patients were followed up 1 and 4 weeks after surgery by a physician who was blinded to the skin preparation solution used at surgery. Evidence of infection according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were documented. The primary outcome of this study was port-site infection 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were organ or space infections and any type of surgical site infections; the study also aimed to prospectively describe rates of surgical site infections in gynecological laparoscopies. Of the 661 patients, 640 (96.8%; mean [SD] age, 36.2 [10.6] years) were examined after surgery by a physician at the study site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of port-site infection was 10.2% (65 of 640), rate of organ or space infection was 6.6% (42 of 640), and rate of any surgical site infection was 16.3% (104 of 640). The odds ratio for port-site infection for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs water-based povidone-iodine was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.08), for alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.71-2.52), and for water-based povidone-iodine vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine was 1.19 (95% 0.62-2.27). Surgical site infections were more common than expected among patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopies. No skin preparation solution provided an advantage compared with the other solutions in reducing infection rates. http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617000475347.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32639545
pii: 2768004
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1953
pmc: PMC7344832
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
0
Povidone-Iodine
85H0HZU99M
Chlorhexidine
R4KO0DY52L
Banques de données
ANZCTR
['ACTRN12617000475347']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
807-815Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Minerva Ginecol. 2019 Aug;71(4):263-271
pubmed: 31146518
Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1796-1805
pubmed: 27538935
J Hosp Infect. 2017 May;96(1):1-15
pubmed: 28410761
BMJ. 2013 Jan 21;346:e8668
pubmed: 23338004
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015 Oct;16(5):498-503
pubmed: 26070101
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;122(4):778-786
pubmed: 24084534
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Nov;31(11):1775-1784
pubmed: 27604812
Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Feb;121(2):206-15
pubmed: 4014116
Ann Surg. 2012 Dec;256(6):934-45
pubmed: 23108128
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Feb;26(2):288-298
pubmed: 30366117
JAMA Surg. 2017 Nov 1;152(11):1023-1029
pubmed: 28700780
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019 Sep;40(9):991-996
pubmed: 31232239
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):18-26
pubmed: 20054046
J Hosp Infect. 2009 Jul;72(3):193-201
pubmed: 19482375
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;192(2):422-5
pubmed: 15695981
Surg Technol Int. 2018 Jun 1;32:39-45
pubmed: 29791701
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2640-51
pubmed: 17182989
Ann Surg. 2004 May;239(5):599-605; discussion 605-7
pubmed: 15082963
Hum Reprod. 2002 May;17(5):1334-42
pubmed: 11980761
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jul;29(7):1769-80
pubmed: 25294541
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 18;374(7):647-55
pubmed: 26844840
JAMA Surg. 2013 Oct;148(10):907-14
pubmed: 23965750
Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96
pubmed: 10196487
Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2002;10(3):133-40
pubmed: 12625969
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Sep - Oct;26(6):1149-1156
pubmed: 30508651