4.2 Article

Supplemental Peri-Operative Oxygen and Incision Site Infection after Surgery for Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Monocentric Trial

Journal

SURGICAL INFECTIONS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 106-113

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2013.132

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The clinical role of hyperoxia for preventing surgical site infection (SSI) remains uncertain because randomized controlled trials on this topic have reported disparate results. One of the principal reasons for this outcome may be that prior trials have entered heterogeneous populations of patients and a variety of procedures. The aim of our study was to assess the influence of hyperoxygenation on SSI using a homogeneous study population. Methods: From January 2004 to April 2013, we studied, in a randomized trial, 239 patients, who underwent open surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The surgical procedure was performed through an upper abdominal midline incision, and closure of PPU was achieved by suture alone or in combination with an omental patch. Patients were assigned randomly to an oxygen/air mixture with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) of 30% (n=120) or 80% (n=119). Administration was commenced after induction of anesthesia and maintained for 6 hours after surgery. Results: The overall incision infection rate was 38.4% (92 of 239): 61 patients (50.8%) had an infection in the 30% FiO(2) group and 31 (26%) in the 80% FiO(2) group (p<0.05). The risk of SSI was 48% lower in the 80% FiO(2) group (relative risk 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-1.08) vs 30% FiO(2). Conclusions: Supplemental 80% FiO(2) during and for 6h after open surgery for PPU, which reduces post-operative SSI, should be considered part of ongoing quality improvement activities related to surgical care, with few risks to the patient and little associated cost.

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