View clinical trials related to Surgical Wound Infection.
Filter by:This study aims to evaluate the utility of double-ring wound-edge protectors to prevent the development of superficial surgical site infections after open appendectomy.
Comparison between waterproof sterile dressing OPSITE Post-Op Visible, Smith & Nephew, UK and PICO-7, Smith & Nephew, UK in terms of inguinal surgical wound infection and complications after lower limb revascularization.
Postoperative antibiotics are routinely used for implant-based breast augmentation at the investigators' institution. From 2017-2019, the investigators' institution has conducted approximately 270 primary and secondary breast augmentation procedures. Current plastic surgery literature does not provide recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis following implant-based breast procedures. Despite controversy surrounding their utility during the postoperative course, postoperative antibiotics have become commonplace for many plastic surgeons. To date, strong scientific evidence supporting this practice is minimal and based largely on anecdotal evidence and limited studies, including poorly controlled retrospective and non-blinded prospective series. The goal of this study is to conduct a prospective randomized trial to assess whether extended antibiotic prophylaxis is necessary to prevent infection and long-term complications (e.g. capsular contracture) in patients undergoing augmentation mammoplasty with implants. The investigators' anticipate that extended antibiotic prophylaxis is not required. The rationale for discontinuing postoperative antibiotics is based on the following: (1) a single dose of preoperative intravenous antibiotics has been demonstrated to be sufficient prophylaxis for most breast surgeries and (2) there are patient safety concerns associated with prolonged antimicrobial use such as the development of resistant bacterial strains and clostridium-related infections. Concrete evidence that extended antibiotic prophylaxis is not required would encourage plastic surgeons to practice better antibiotic stewardship and help stymie the rise of drug-resistant organisms.
The purpose of the PULSE study are the followingL A.To perform post market clinical follow up (PMCF) on safety and efficacy: 1. Safety: To confirm transient short-terms side effects and verify long-term/outstanding risks. 2. Efficacy: To confirm the performance of PLASOMA, i.e. the beneficial effect on bacterial load. B. Determine the effect of PLASOMA on wound surface area. A secondary purpose is to examine the beneficial effects of PLASOMA on wound healing and to perform a health technology assessment (HTA). This clinical study will be an open label two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT), performed at at least three sites (multi-center) in the Netherlands. The two arms are: 1. Control group: Standard wound care for 12 weeks or until healing, whichever occurs first; 2. Treatment group: Standard wound care + PLASOMA treatment for 12 weeks or until healing, whichever occurs first. The frequency of PLASOMA treatment will be determined by the treating (para)medical professional based on the number of visits they would schedule for the standard wound care at the study site. For all study subjects, the treatment frequency will be at least once per week (in order to have enough treatments for safety evaluation) and should not exceed once per day. Follow up (FU) will be performed at three timepoints for both arms: - FU1: 2 weeks after end treatment period - FU2: 12 weeks after end treatment period - FU3: 12 months after start treatment.
The aim of the project is to evaluate the effectiveness, on the skin cleanliness of the patient on arrival at the operating room, of an intervention aimed at improving the performance of the preoperative shower, for patients undergoing a planned surgical intervention in an orthopedic surgery department, digestive, gynecological, thoracic, or vascular.
Background: Data on the benefits of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics for breast surgery are conflicting and there is no guideline for their use for wire-localized lumpectomy. The aims of this study were to determine whether a single dose of pre-operative antibiotic reduces surgical site infection (SSI) for wire-localized lumpectomy and to identify risk factors for SSI. Methods: This was a prospective randomized trial carried out from April 2018 to June 2019 at the "Centre des Maladies du Sein du CHU de Québec - Université Laval", a tertiary center specialized in breast surgery. After informed consent, patients who underwent wire-localized lumpectomy were randomized to receive or not a pre-operative single dose of prophylactic antibiotic (cefazolin 2 g or clindamycin 900 mg in case of penicillin allergy). Data regarding demographics, comorbidities, perioperative details, and SSI were analyzed. SSI was considered if: 1) patient had positive wound cultures; or 2) required abscess drainage; or 3) received antibiotic treatment for breast symptoms (e.g., swelling, erythema, congestion) within 30 days after operation, in the absence of wound culture or in the presence of negative results. The patients and the investigator responsible for data collection were blind to grouping. All patients were called 30 days after surgery to be sure that they did not consult at another hospital for surgical wound infection.
This is a nationwide multicenter,retrospective,observational real-world study. 1. To assess the risk of perioperative complications in patients with tumor who received bevacizumab prior to unexpected operation. 2. To assess the correlation of the interval time between the last dose of bevacizumab and operation and occurrence of perioperative complications. 3. To explore the risk factors of perioperative comlications in patients with tumor received bevacizumab prior to unexpected operation.
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the major hospital acquired infections and responsible for the most cost among the hospital acquired infections. The objective of this study is to assess the neutrophil functional profiles and their associations with SSIs.
Surgical site infections (SSI) are serious complications accounting for 20% of all the healthcare-associated infections and are considered the second most frequent type of hospital-acquired infection in Europe and the United States. SSI after cardiac surgery is associated with delays to patient's discharge, readmissions and re-operations; and can result in increased hospital costs for staffing, diagnostics and treatment. Risk assessment has been identified as potentially useful intervention in SSI prevention and in identifying at risk populations who may benefit from specific interventions to reduce this possible complication of cardiac surgery. However, there is currently a lack of evidence as to which risk tools are the most valid and reliable to be used in clinical practice. The investigators developed and locally validated the Barts Heart Centre Surgical Infection Risk (B-SIR) tool to include patients with various types of cardiac surgeries and found that the B-SIR tool is a better tool in predicting SSI risk compared with the existing cardiac risk tools in the study population. However, various literatures recognised that the predictive performance of a risk model tends to vary across settings, populations and periods. Hence, the investigators aim to do a multi-centre validation of the newly developed B-SIR tool and apply all the other tools (Australian Cardiac Risk Index and Brompton and Harefield Infection Score) to identify what tool performs best that can potentially be use for the UK population. Further, the outcome of the study will be beneficial to future cardiac surgery patients to assess their risk of developing SSI and help identify those patients who may benefit from specific interventions. Existing patients' data, which will be anonymised, from the participating cardiac centres will be utilised to analyse and compare the performance of each risk tools.
The study will be carried out in Surgical Unit-III, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore for one year . . Patients undergoing surgery for Ileostomy will be randomly divided into two groups, Group-A (Purse-string closure) and Group-B (Conventional primary closure). All the patients will be called for follow up checkup on 14th days after operation and after one month. Both of the groups will be checked and recorded for SSI after operation and hospital stay.