View clinical trials related to Surgical Wound Infection.
Filter by:The aim of the present randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of wound drains in terms of reducing the rates of surgical site infection in obese patients with gynecological cancer.
Despite advances in laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) is recognized as one of the commonly reported complications with relation to the extent of infectious abdominal contamination. Herein, the investigators report their experience of laparoscopic surgery for PPU with/without peritoneal irrigation and discuss postoperative outcome. The investigators retrospectively examined the electronic medical records of the patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer at a single medical center in Taiwan between January 2013 and August 2021. Retrospectively, the investigators would include those patients with clinical diagnosis of PPU who underwent emergent laparoscopic surgery. The patients with previous abdominal surgery, pathologic confirmed malignant ulcer perforation or concomitant ulcer bleeding were excluded. The investigators focused on post-operative complications and outcome after laparoscopic surgery with or without peritoneal irrigation. This information can be important in improving surgical options with respect to risk and potential benefits in this setting.
The main aim of the study was to identify the various pathogens associated with surgical site infections and their antibiotic susceptibility in a governmental hospital in northern Jordan.
This is a Phase 2 single-center, open-label, single-arm, study of a microbiological endpoint using antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for nasal disinfection in all patients (universal) presenting for surgery at an acute care hospital for a wide range of surgical procedures.
This is a implementation research study of a surgical wound tele-monitoring online tool developed at the University of Edinburgh and demonstrated in the "Tracking wound infection with smartphone technology" (TWIST) randomised control trial (NCT02704897) conducted in NHS Lothian. The study design is based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) "Guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions".
Surgical site infections (SSI) constitute an important health concern in low and middle income countries, leading to prolonged hospital stay and increased costs. Previous studies indicate that in Africa up to 1/3 of patients undergoing surgery may be affected by a postoperative infection. The development and implementation of context-specific SSI prevention guidelines is important to reduce this complication. To deploy efficient context-specific measures, data on epidemiology and microbiology of these infections are needed. This means to adapt the prevention measures to the context-specific risk factors for surgical site infections in resource-limited settings, and to give locally adapted recommendations on antimicrobial therapy based on local resistance patterns. However, data in this respect are scarce in low and middle income countries. This present study will contribute to the needed epidemiology and microbiology data on SSI in Cameroon. It will be carried out as a prospective cohort study at the Mbouo Protestant hospital in the West Region of Cameroon. The incidence, microbial spectrum and respective antimicrobial resistance of SSI as well as the risk factors of SSI will be systematically investigated. The study will include 300 patients at the Hôpital Protestant de Mbouo (HPM) who underwent surgery and gave their informed consent for inclusion, the timeframe is 04/2021 - 11/2021. An active SSI surveillance system will be put in place for 30 postoperative days to diagnose SSI. Expected outcomes: The incidence of SSI is likely to be higher than 10%. Concerning risk factors, preoperative bodywashing and perioperative antibioprophylaxis is expected to be protective against SSI. Up to 1/3 of SSI are expected to occur after hospital discharge. For the microbial spectrum, a high proportion of Staphylococcus aureus is likely to be found. For the antimicrobial resistance no estimation can be give as data is non-existent in that region from the literature.
Surgical Site Infections (SSI) develop as a complication of surgical care 30-90 days after surgery without implants and within 1 year after implanted operations. Despite advances in asepsis practices, sterilization methods, surgical technique and antibiotic prophylaxis, SSI is the most important cause of hospital stay, morbidity and even mortality. SSI, which constitutes approximately 20% of healthcare associated infections (HAI) all over the world, is also the HAI with the highest cost. Although it has been reported that 60% of the SSI can be prevented by using evidence-based guidelines, 2-5% of the operated patients develop SSI, the hospital stay of patients with SSI is 7-11 days longer, the risk of death increases 2-11 times, It was reported that the cause of death was direct SSI. In the United States of America (USA), SSI constitutes 31% of HAI, it is seen in 2-5% of inpatients, approximately 160,000-300,000 SSIs occur each year, the most common and costly HAI.Abdominal surgery; It includes the treatment of diseases of organs such as stomach, gall bladder, pancreas, spleen, liver, small intestine and large intestine. It has been reported that the incidence of SSIs after abdominal surgery is 15-25% higher than other types of surgery. In a study conducted by Alcan et al. (2020), 69.8% of nurses stated that they used Povidone Iodine as skin antisepsis. Wistrand et al. (2015) compared preoperative 36 ° C and room temperature 20 ° C Chlorhexidine Gluconate solutions, but reported that there was no difference in bacterial colonization and SSI rates. In their study in Turkey, Gezer et al. (2020) reported that the prevalence of SSI was significantly lower in the Povidone Iodine group heated to 37 ° C before surgery compared to the Povidone Iodine group applied at 25 ° C room temperature.
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.
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.
This study will evaluate a new topical skin antiseptic perioperative preparation and the standard of care to determine efficacy on the rates of surgical site infections of surgical patients. Safety will also be assessed.