Webster Joan, Alghamdi Abdullah
Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Level 2, Building 34, Butterfield Street, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4029.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 22;2015(4):CD006353. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006353.pub4.
Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice.
To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity.
For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015).
Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded.
Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.
据估计,清洁手术中约15%的病例以及污染手术中30%的病例会发生手术部位感染。在手术过程中使用塑料粘贴巾来保护伤口免受周围皮肤上可能存在的微生物污染,是预防手术部位感染的一种策略。非随机研究的结果对于这种方法的有效性产生了相互矛盾的结论。因此需要进行一项系统评价来指导临床实践。
评估手术中使用粘贴巾对手术部位感染、成本、死亡率和发病率的影响。
在本次第四次更新中,我们检索了Cochrane伤口小组专业注册库(检索时间为2015年3月4日);Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2015年第2期);Ovid MEDLINE(2012年至2015年3月3日);Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引引文,2012年至2015年3月3日);Ovid EMBASE(2012年至2015年3月3日);以及EBSCO CINAHL(2012年至2015年3月4日)。
比较任何塑料粘贴巾与不使用塑料粘贴巾(单独使用或与织物(材质)巾或一次性(纸质)巾联合使用)对接受任何类型手术患者影响的随机对照试验。环形巾被排除。
两位综述作者独立选择并评估研究的试验质量,且均独立提取数据。我们联系了研究作者以获取更多信息。
在本次第四次更新中,我们未发现新的研究。该综述纳入了五项涉及3082名参与者的研究,比较了塑料粘贴巾与不使用巾的情况,以及两项涉及1113名参与者的研究,比较了含碘粘贴巾与不使用巾的情况。与不使用巾相比,粘贴巾组发生手术部位感染的患者比例显著更高(风险比(RR)1.23,95%置信区间(CI)1.02至1.48,P = 0.03)。含碘粘贴巾对手术部位感染率无影响(RR 1.03,95%CI 0.06至1.66,P = 0.89)。粘贴巾组和非粘贴巾组的住院时间相似。
七项试验中没有证据表明塑料粘贴巾能降低手术部位感染率,且有一些证据表明它们会增加感染率。基于不同的伤口分类,使用盲法结局评估来研究粘贴巾对手术部位感染的影响,可能有必要进行进一步的试验。