An international assessment of surgeon practices in abdominal wound closure and surgical site infection prevention by the European Society for Coloproctology

Author:

Chowdhury Sharfuddin1,El‐Hussuna Alaa23,Gallo Gaetano4,Keatley James5ORCID,Kelly Michael E.6,Minaya‐Bravo Ana7,Ovington Liza8,Pata Francesco9ORCID,Pellino Gianluca10ORCID,Pinkney Thomas511,Sanchez Guillen Luis12ORCID,Schmitz Niels‐Derrek813,Spychaj Kerstin13,Riess Celine13,van Ramshorst Gabrielle H.1415,

Affiliation:

1. King Saud Medical City Riyadh Saudi Arabia

2. Aalborg University Hospital Aalborg Denmark

3. Aalborg University Aalborg Denmark

4. University Sapienza di Roma Rome Italy

5. University of Birmingham Birmingham UK

6. St James Hospitale Dublin Ireland

7. Henares Teaching Hospital Coslada Spain

8. Ethicon Raritan New Jersey USA

9. Università della Calabria, Azienda Ospedaliera di Cosenzae Arcavacata Italy

10. Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Barcelona Spain

11. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Aalborg Denmark

12. Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche Elche Spain

13. Ethicon Norderstedt Germany

14. Ghent University Hospital Ghent Belgium

15. Ghent University Ghent Belgium

Abstract

AbstractAimThe burden of abdominal wound failure can be profound. Recent clinical guidelines have highlighted the heterogeneity of laparotomy closure techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate current midline closure techniques and practices for prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).MethodAn online survey was distributed in 2021 among the membership of the European Society of Coloproctology and its partner societies. Surgeons were asked to provide information on how they would close the abdominal wall in three specific clinical scenarios and on SSI prevention practices.ResultsA total of 561 consultants and trainee surgeons participated in the survey, mainly from Europe (n = 375, 66.8%). Of these, 60.6% identified themselves as colorectal surgeons and 39.4% as general surgeons. The majority used polydioxanone for fascial closure, with small bite techniques predominating in clean‐contaminated cases (74.5%, n = 418). No significant differences were found between consultants and trainee surgeons. For SSI prevention, more surgeons preferred the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone over MBP and oral antibiotics combined. Most surgeons preferred 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine (68.4%) or aqueous povidone‐iodine (61.1%) for skin preparation. The majority did not use triclosan‐coated sutures (73.3%) or preoperative warming of the wound site (78.5%), irrespective of level of training or European/non‐European practice.ConclusionAbdominal wound closure technique and SSI prevention strategies vary widely between surgeons. There is little evidence of a risk‐stratified approach to wound closure materials or techniques, with most surgeons using the same strategy for all patient scenarios. Harmonization of practice and the limitation of outlying techniques might result in better outcomes for patients and provide a stable platform for the introduction and evaluation of further potential improvements.

Funder

Ethicon

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Gastroenterology

Reference45 articles.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3