View clinical trials related to Surgical Wound Infection.
Filter by:The purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness, safety, and health-care utilization and costs of a preoperative Staphylococcus aureus (SA) screening and decolonization bundle, (5 days of nasal mupirocin ointment, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) body wash, and CHG mouth rinse), in eradicating SA carriage compared to other SA decolonization approaches. The study will conduct a single center pilot trial to compare efficacy of different SA decolonization approaches in pre-surgical patients, in eradicating SA carriage, after obtaining informed consent. The study will compare four different approaches, Arm 1) screen for SA carriage and using the three-drug decolonization bundle for 5 days among patients with SA colonization, non SA carriers in this arm will get two pre-op showers with CHG soap, Arm 2) all participants receive the three drug decolonization bundle, Arm 3) all receive pre-op nasal povidone iodine the day of surgery plus two pre-op showers with CHG soap, and Arm 4) all receive nasal alcohol gel the day of surgery plus two pre op showers with CHG soap. The primary efficacy outcome will be eradication of SA colonization at all 5 body sites. Secondary outcomes will be SA surgical site infections (SSIs), all SSIs, and SA healthcare associated infections (HAIs). The study will also compare eradication of SA from each of the 5 body sites as a secondary outcome.
DUOFAG® is a phage cocktail containing bacteriophages active against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It is an investigational medicinal product for the treatment of surgical site infections caused by S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the safety of DUOFAG® and the clinical and microbiological change within 10 weeks after the start of treatment or until healing.
The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of using Bioelectric wound dressing on the pre-operative wound site and post operatively and compared it outcomes to the standard of care chlorhexidine skin preparation.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two types of closure in patients with ostomies that are ready for closure. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Surgical site infection rates 2. Patient quality of life 3. Time to wound healing Participants will undergo either complete ostomy wound closure after washing out the wound with Prontosan, or their ostomy wound will be closed using the Pursestring method, where the wound will be left partially open and allowed to heal from the inside out. Researchers will compare these two groups' outcomes (questions to be answered) as listed above.
Considering the relatively high incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) in colorectal surgery, this trial will compare rates of SSI in patients undergoing colorectal resections followed by surgical wound irrigation with povidone-iodine versus the group of patients undergoing surgical wound irrigation with saline solution. The trial will be conducted in a large university hospital in Southern Brazil.
Assessment of the impact of changing sterile gloves at the time of wound closure on reduction of SSI in women undergoing elective CS.
In the latest guidelines for abdominal wall closure in emergency surgery published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WJES) in 2023, no specific recommendations are made in this regard. Current literature does not provide any articles comparing these two types of mesh materials (PP vs PVDF) in emergency colorectal surgery. It is necessary to conduct a study comparing these two types of mesh materials, specifically in high-risk patients for incisional hernia and emergency colorectal surgery. This study aims to contribute to generating evidence regarding differences in wound infection incidence and potential subsequent complications, such as chronic pain. It is essential to conduct a study comparing different methods of laparotomy closure, specifically in emergency colorectal surgery, to contribute valuable evidence regarding the incidence of incisional hernia and potential subsequent complications.
Transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy (TULA) is increasingly favored in the treatment of appendicitis within the realm of minimally invasive surgical approaches. This procedure offers advantages such as superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced postoperative pain. However, like all surgical interventions, it carries the inherent risk of surgical site infections (SSI), which pose significant challenges to patient health and healthcare systems by escalating treatment costs, prolonging recovery, and increasing morbidity rates. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the "glove finger method" in mitigating SSI risk in TULA. The rationale for this study is predicated on the hypothesis that the glove finger method could serve as a simple and cost-effective measure offering potential protection against SSIs. When compared to traditional methods, this technique may not only reduce surgical duration but also diminish the risk of SSIs, thereby potentially decreasing hospital stay durations. Furthermore, enhancing the understanding of factors contributing to the development of SSIs and developing effective strategies for their prevention can elevate patient care quality and alleviate the burden on healthcare systems.
There are conflicting results in the literature explaining the relationship between surgical site infection (SSI) and inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH). Although it is thought that the risk of IPH is lower in laparoscopic surgery types due to the short duration of the surgical procedure, these conflicting results raise doubts as to whether there is a relationship between IPH and SSI in laparoscopic surgery patients. A randomized controlled study will be planned in the future to examine the effect of IPH on SSI in patients who will undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The study will be conducted in the general surgery clinic and operating room of a university hospital. It will be completed with a total of 100 patients, 50 of whom will be in the case group, and 50 will be in the control group.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of NPWTi and NPWT in superficial and deep surgical site infections using an improvised system with continuous lavage with saline and chlorhexidine. The main question it aims to answer is whether the NPWTi is better than conventional NPWT. Participants will be given NPWTi or conventional NPWT. Researchers will compare the two groups to see if NPWTi diminishes the rate of recurrent infections and the number of reoperations, shortens the hospital stay, and alleviates the burden on the hospital staff in comparison to the conventional NPWT.