Srinivas Shruthi, Coleman Julia R, Baselice Holly, Scarlet Sara, Tracy Brett M
Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
J Surg Res. 2024 Dec;304:190-195. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.10.026. Epub 2024 Nov 16.
We sought to determine if there was a relationship between skin management and surgical site infections (SSIs) among patients undergoing a laparotomy for emergency general surgery (EGS). We hypothesize that skin closure technique is not associated with SSI.
We performed a retrospective review of adult patients (>18 y) who underwent an exploratory laparotomy for EGS conditions within 6 h of surgical consultation from 2015 to 2019. Patients whose fascia was not closed during the index operation were excluded. Patients were divided into groups: open skin (OS) and closed skin (CS). OS included negative pressure wound therapy or wet-to-dry gauze; CS included closure with staples or sutures. Our primary outcome was the rate of SSI.
The cohort comprised 388 patients: 42.3% OS (n = 164) and 57.7% CS (n = 224). The OS group had greater rates of systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS] (54.9% versus 27.7%, P < 0.0001), hollow viscus perforation [HVP] (71.3% versus 20.5%, P < 0.0001), and peritoneal drains (51.2% versus 17.9%, P < 0.0001). Rates of OS management increased as wound class severity increased (0% [I] versus 12.2% [II] versus 15.9% [III] versus 72% [IV], P < 0.0001). The SSI rate for the cohort was 3.6% (n = 14); there was no difference in SSI rates (2.7% versus 4.9%, P = 0.3) between the CS or OS groups. Median length of stay was longer for the OS group (10 d versus 6.5 d, P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of OS management were SIRS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.93, P = 0.04), HVP (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.09-3.8, P = 0.03), and class III/IV wounds (aOR 8.65, 95% CI 4.43-16.89, P < 0.0001).
OS management occurs more often in patients with SIRS, HVP, and dirty wounds after EGS laparotomies. However, we found no difference in SSI between groups, suggesting that skin closure can be considered in contaminated or dirty wounds.
我们试图确定急诊普通外科(EGS)剖腹手术患者的皮肤管理与手术部位感染(SSI)之间是否存在关联。我们假设皮肤闭合技术与SSI无关。
我们对2015年至2019年在手术咨询后6小时内接受EGS剖腹探查术的成年患者(>18岁)进行了回顾性研究。排除初次手术时筋膜未闭合的患者。患者分为两组:开放皮肤(OS)组和闭合皮肤(CS)组。OS组包括负压伤口治疗或湿 - 干纱布换药;CS组包括用吻合钉或缝线闭合。我们的主要结局是SSI发生率。
该队列包括388例患者:42.3%为OS组(n = 164),57.7%为CS组(n = 224)。OS组全身炎症反应综合征[SIRS]发生率更高(54.9%对27.7%,P < 0.0001)、中空脏器穿孔[HVP]发生率更高(71.3%对20.5%,P < 0.0001)以及放置腹腔引流管的比例更高(51.2%对17.9%,P < 0.0001)。随着伤口等级严重程度增加,OS管理率升高(I级为0%对II级为12.2%对III级为15.9%对IV级为72%,P < 0.0001)。该队列的SSI发生率为3.6%(n = 14);CS组和OS组之间的SSI发生率无差异(2.7%对4.9%,P = 0.3)。OS组的中位住院时间更长(10天对6.5天,P < 0.0001)。OS管理的独立预测因素为SIRS(调整优势比[aOR] 1.72,95%置信区间[CI] 1.01 - 2.93,P = 0.04)、HVP(aOR 2.03,95% CI 1.09 - 3.8,P = 0.03)以及III/IV级伤口(aOR 8.65,95% CI 4.43 - 16.89,P < 0.0001)。
在EGS剖腹手术后,SIRS、HVP和伤口污染的患者中更常采用OS管理。然而,我们发现两组之间的SSI无差异,这表明在污染或脏污的伤口中可以考虑进行皮肤闭合。