Molliqaj Granit, Lener Sara, Da Broi Michele, Nouri Aria, Silva Baticam Nalla, Schaller Karl, Thomé Claudius, Girod Pierre-Pascal, Tessitore Enrico
Division of Neurosurgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Department of Neurosurgery, Innsbruck University Hospital, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 16;13(24):7675. doi: 10.3390/jcm13247675.
To determine whether a closed dressing protocol reduces the surgical site infections (SSI) rate compared to conventional closing techniques. Patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery at two neurosurgical centers were retrospectively included from June 2015 to December 2019. Data on patients, general risk factors, and surgical risk factors for SSI were collected. Patients were subdivided into two groups: a Closed Protocol where the Dermabond ± Prineo dressing system was used, and a Conventional Protocol, namely sutures or staples. Statistical analysis was undertaken to compare the infection rates among the different closure techniques. Altogether, 672 patients were included. In the whole cohort, 157 (23.36%) underwent skin closure with staples, 122 (18.15%) with sutures, 98 (14.58%) with intracutaneous sutures, 78 (11.61%) with Dermabond, and 217 (32.29%) with Demabond + Prineo. The overall infection rate was 2.23% (n = 15). Skin suture had the highest infection rate (4.10%), while the lowest was Dermabond (1.28%) and Dermabond + Prineo (1.4%), though the difference was not significant. Risk factors for SSI included higher BMI (29.46 kg/m vs. 26.96 kg/m, = 0.044), other sites infection (20.00% vs. 2.38%, = 0.004), and a higher national nosocomial infections surveillance score ( = 0.003). This study showed that a closed protocol with the use of adhesive dressing with or without mesh had a slight tendency to lower infection rates compared to conventional protocol with sutures or staples, although no statistically significant difference was found between the closure techniques. Larger randomized studies are needed to investigate this potential benefit avoiding selection bias.
为了确定与传统闭合技术相比,封闭式敷料方案是否能降低手术部位感染(SSI)率。对2015年6月至2019年12月期间在两个神经外科中心接受腰椎手术的患者进行回顾性纳入研究。收集了患者、一般风险因素和SSI手术风险因素的数据。患者被分为两组:使用皮肤粘合剂(Dermabond)±Prineo敷料系统的封闭式方案组,以及传统方案组,即使用缝线或吻合钉。进行统计分析以比较不同闭合技术之间的感染率。总共纳入了672例患者。在整个队列中,157例(23.36%)采用吻合钉进行皮肤闭合,122例(18.15%)采用缝线,98例(14.58%)采用皮内缝线,78例(11.61%)采用皮肤粘合剂,217例(32.29%)采用皮肤粘合剂+Prineo。总体感染率为2.23%(n = 15)。皮肤缝线的感染率最高(4.10%),而最低的是皮肤粘合剂(1.28%)和皮肤粘合剂+Prineo(1.4%),尽管差异不显著。SSI的风险因素包括较高的体重指数(29.46kg/m²对26.96kg/m²,P = 0.044)、其他部位感染(20.00%对2.38%,P = 0.004)以及较高的国家医院感染监测评分(P = 0.003)。本研究表明,与使用缝线或吻合钉的传统方案相比,使用有或无网片的粘性敷料的封闭式方案有轻微降低感染率的趋势,尽管在闭合技术之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。需要更大规模的随机研究来调查这种潜在益处,以避免选择偏倚。