4.2 Review

Intra-Cavity Lavage and Wound Irrigation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Journal

SURGICAL INFECTIONS
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 144-167

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2019.318

Keywords

network meta-analysis; surgical site infections; systematic review; wound irrigation

Funding

  1. United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) [IS-BRC-1215-20007]
  2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust
  3. University of Bristol [IS-BRC-1215-20011]
  4. NIHR via Cochrane Infrastructure [13/89/08]
  5. NIHR via Cochrane Programme [13/89/08]
  6. MRC [MR/K025643/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [IS-BRC-1215-20011] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A network meta-analysis of 42 RCTs found that antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation had the lowest odds of surgical site infections (SSIs). However, there is high heterogeneity and bias in the studies, calling for the need for large-scale RCTs to establish the standard of care for SSI prevention through site irrigation.
Background: 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. Methods: 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 Results: 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#x005D;). Antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation were ranked as most effective for preventing SSIs; this conclusion was robust to potential bias. Conclusions: 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available