Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021 Mar;22(2):144-167. doi: 10.1089/sur.2019.318. Epub 2020 Apr 29.
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes. Intra-operative surgical site irrigation and intra-cavity lavage may reduce the risk of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and site exudate. Irrigation with antibiotic or antiseptic solutions may further reduce the risk of SSI because of bacteriocidal properties. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing irrigation solutions, but important comparisons (e.g., antibiotic vs. antiseptic irrigation) are absent. We use systematic review-based network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs to compare irrigation solutions for prevention of SSI. We used Cochrane methodology and included all RCTs of participants undergoing a surgical procedure with primary site closure, in which method of irrigation was the only systematic difference between groups. We used a random effects Bayesian NMA to create a connected network of comparisons. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) of SSI, where OR <1 indicates a beneficial effect. We identified 42 eligible RCTs with 11,726 participants. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias. The RCTs included groups given no irrigation or non-antibacterial, antiseptic, or antibiotic irrigation. There was substantial heterogeneity, and a random effects model was selected. Relative to non-antibacterial irrigation, mean OR of SSI was 0.439 (95% credible interval: 0.282, 0.667) for antibiotic irrigation and 0.573 (0.321, 0.953) for antiseptic agents. No irrigation was similar to non-antibacterial irrigation (OR 0.959 [0.555, 1.660]). Antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation were ranked as most effective for preventing SSIs; this conclusion was robust to potential bias. Our NMA found that antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation had the lowest odds of SSI. There was high heterogeneity, however, and studies were at high risk of bias. A large RCT directly comparing antibiotic irrigation with both antiseptic and non-antibacterial irrigation is needed to define the standard of care for SSI prevention by site irrigation.
手术部位感染(SSI)成本高昂,并与患者预后较差有关。术中手术部位冲洗和腔内灌洗可以通过清除死组织或受损组织、代谢废物和部位渗出物来降低 SSI 的风险。用抗生素或抗菌溶液冲洗可以进一步降低 SSI 的风险,因为它具有杀菌作用。已经进行了比较冲洗溶液的随机对照试验(RCT),但缺少重要的比较(例如,抗生素与抗菌冲洗)。我们使用基于系统评价的网络荟萃分析(NMA)来比较预防 SSI 的冲洗溶液。我们使用 Cochrane 方法,纳入了所有接受主要部位闭合手术的参与者的 RCT,其中冲洗方法是组间唯一的系统差异。我们使用随机效应贝叶斯 NMA 来创建一个比较的连通网络。结果以 SSI 的比值比(OR)表示,OR<1 表示有益效果。我们确定了 42 项符合条件的 RCT,涉及 11726 名参与者。大多数 RCT 的偏倚风险为不清楚或高。这些 RCT 包括未进行冲洗或未使用非抗生素、抗菌或抗生素冲洗的组。存在很大的异质性,因此选择了随机效应模型。与非抗菌冲洗相比,抗生素冲洗的 SSI 平均 OR 为 0.439(95%可信区间:0.282,0.667),抗菌剂为 0.573(0.321,0.953)。不冲洗与非抗菌冲洗相似(OR 0.959[0.555,1.660])。抗生素和抗菌冲洗被认为是预防 SSI 的最有效方法;这一结论在潜在偏差方面是稳健的。我们的 NMA 发现,抗生素和抗菌冲洗的 SSI 发生率最低。然而,存在高度异质性,并且研究存在很高的偏倚风险。需要一项直接比较抗生素冲洗与抗菌和非抗菌冲洗的大型 RCT,以确定通过部位冲洗预防 SSI 的标准护理。