Open Access

Current preventive measures for health-care associated surgical site infections: a review

Patient Safety in Surgery20148:42

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-014-0042-5

Received: 18 June 2014

Accepted: 23 September 2014

Published: 11 October 2014

Abstract

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) continue to be a tremendous issue today. It is estimated 1.7 million HAIs occur per year, and cost the healthcare system up to $45 billion annually. Surgical site infections (SSIs) alone account for 290,000 of total HAIs and approximately 8,000 deaths. In today's rapidly changing world of medicine, it is ever important to remain cognizant of this matter and its impact both globally and on the individual lives of our patients. This review aims to impress upon the reader the unremitting significance of HAIs in the daily practice of medicine. Further, we discuss the etiology of HAIs and review successful preventive measures that have been demonstrated in the literature. In particular, we highlight preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative interventions to combat SSIs. Finally, we contend that current systems in place are often insufficient, and emphasize the benefits of institution-wide adoption of multiple preventive interventions. We hope this concise update and review can inspire additional dialogue for the continuing progress towards improving patient care and patient lives.

Keywords

NosocomialSurgical site infectionsHealth-care associated infectionsHospital-acquiredPreventive measures

Introduction

Since the early beginnings of modern medicine, nosocomial infections or healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have come hand in hand with any progress in medicine and surgery. Without question, we have come a long way since the days the "good old surgical stink" was lauded. This now gone era was a time when surgeons took pride in their accumulated filth as a mark of their experience and professional status, and would thus regularly operate with bloodstained, unwashed garments [1]. Much of the progress since then is owed to Joseph Lister, an English surgeon who is considered the father of antiseptic surgery. He championed carbolic acid sterilization, hand washing, clean garments and gloves [2]. Later on, the discovery of penicillin in 1928 and its mass production in the 1940s increasingly tipped the scales in our favor. And for some time, it seemed like we were on the brink of victory in the war against HAIs. Yet any sort of celebration was short-lived, for as our antibiotics became stronger and more pervasive, certain strains of bacteria brooded in defiance and soon emerged resistant to our drugs.

Further, as the field of medicine advanced, its very landscape changed—hospitals grew larger, patient lives extended well beyond what was ever thought possible, and the kinds of diseases doctors treated shifted towards that of a chronic nature. This came with consequences that became apparent too late. The unbridled use of antibiotics increased the life expectancy of patients with chronic illnesses, but at the cost of harboring resistant microorganisms. Subsequently, these bugs slowly spread beyond the doors of the hospital until these fugitive strains became part of the normal flora in the community.

This is the matter at hand today, and indeed the implications are enormous, astronomical even, if we fail to remain vigilant. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated in 2002 that 1.7 million HAIs occur annually and about 1 in 20 hospitalized patients will develop an HAI, of which, 99,000 will result in deaths [3]. In terms of healthcare expenditure, the annual direct cost of HAIs is approximately $28-45 billion [4]. Greater still are the costs to a patient when a seemingly "run-of-the-mill" medical or surgical procedure unexpectedly turns into a fight for his or her life. Such was the case for 34 patients in Harborview Medical Center in 1980 when a man with 35% total-body-surface-area burn was transferred from a burn unit endemic with methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Even with standard wound precautions, this antibiotic-resistant S. aureus was transmitted to 34 other patients. Ultimately, 27 were infected and 17 of the 34 died [5].

At present we live in a world of unparalleled capability in science, technology, and medicine. Things that were once only imagined in fiction and sci-fi movies are quickly becoming our reality. Not only do we routinely perform heart and lung transplants, but we have entered the realm of face and hand transplantation. Despite all these advances, health-care associated infections have repeatedly proven to remain a formidable force that looms in the background—one that if we don't actively and continually combat can threaten to undo any good we strive to accomplish.

Definition

Healthcare-associated infection is officially defined by the CDC/National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Surveillance as "a localized or systemic condition resulting from an adverse reaction to the presence of an infectious agent(s) or its toxin(s) [6],[7]. There must be no evidence that the infection was present or incubating at the time of admission to the acute care setting." The "big four," which are the 4 most common types, are urinary tract infections (UTI), surgical site infections (SSI), bloodstream infections (BSI), and pneumonia (PNEU) [6],[7]. SSIs account for roughly 1/3 of all HAIs, and catheter-associated BSIs, catheter-associated UTIs, and ventilator-associated pneumonias account for the remaining 2/3 [6],[7].

SSIs are classified into incisional and organ/space, with specific criteria for each [6],[7]. Incisional is sub-classified into superficial incisional, involving only the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and deep incisional, involving fascia and muscle. Organ/space SSI involves any part of the body that was opened or manipulated during the operation, excluding the incision, fascia, and muscle layers. For a more detailed description of each, including signs/symptoms, please refer to CDC/NHSN criteria [6],[7].

Goals

The goal of this review is to impress that this issue should be paramount to the daily practice of medicine. To that aim, we provide an update and succinct summary of the literature regarding the etiology of HAIs and highlight some preventive measures that can be successfully implemented, specifically concerning SSIs. We also briefly introduce a novel treatment methodology that our lab has been developing as a potential avenue to combat nosocomial SSIs. Lastly, we want to emphasize the implications of this issue to the healthcare system and to the individual patient.

Pathophysiology/etiology

The etiology of HAIs is undeniably multifactorial. However, the source of contamination can often be attributed to the endogenous skin flora of either the patient or hospital staff [8]-[10]. There are two categories of flora: resident and transient [9],[11],[12]. Resident flora are microorganisms that normally colonize an individual and live in harmony with the host, usually providing some benefit or protection [9],[11],[12]. Conversely, transient flora are microorganisms picked up from the environment. They often do not survive very long on the host, but are easily transmissible from one to another or back to the environment [9],[11],[12].

Often referred to as the human "microbiota", the resident flora vastly outnumber human host cells by 10–100 times and form a commensal community. Over the past decade, new sequencing technologies and emerging fields such as metagenomics have enabled researchers to begin characterizing this intricate, dynamic micro-ecosystem and its implication on host health and disease [12]-[16]. It is thought that a disruption or alteration of the complex interactions among human cells and endogenous microorganisms can lead to disease states, such as autoimmune, metabolic, infectious, inflammatory, and even psychological disorders. In the realm of HAIs, studies have suggested that the microbiota can act as a physical barrier to colonization and/or keep the potential virulence of some endogenous microorganisms in check [12]-[16]. An insult to host homeostasis whether as a consequence of surgery or another process may in fact disturb the balance of this delicate ecosystem, permitting the overgrowth of specific strains of resident flora with pathogenic potential and/or colonization of transient flora, transmitted by the environment or by hospital staff [12]-[16].

Some of the most common microorganisms that account for HAIs include coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus, Enteroccocus species, Candida, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella [17]. There is a significant percentage of HAIs associated with multidrug-resistant pathogens (~16%) [17]. The most common includes Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), accounting for 8%, Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci faecium (VRE), and Carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa [17]. About 25-30% of the community is now colonized by S. aureus and up to 5% are colonized with MRSA [18].

These microorganisms spread through many routes. The most common of which includes contact, air, water, and vehicle.

• Contact transmission is by direct contact, and perhaps the most common and easiest way for resident and transient flora to spread to a susceptible patient. It is also the route most easily traced back to healthcare workers and staff. This is often due to improper hand hygiene, poor antiseptic technique, contaminated needles, instruments, or dressings.

• Air transmission is often invisible and insidious since microorganisms carried in the form of airborne droplets can travel long distances, especially if ventilation is poor. Coughing and sneezing are common ways these pathogens can become airborne. A proper filtration system in place is helpful to prevent hospital-wide transmission.

• Water transmission is an underappreciated route for the spread of pathogens. Contaminated hospital water can cause devastating nosocomial outbreaks. It is estimated that waterborne pseudomonas infections kill 1400 annually in the US [19]. Moreover, opportunistic fungi are also a significant threat, especially to immunocompromised patients [20],[21].

• Vehicle transmission is by contaminated surfaces and objects such as food, medications, devices, and equipment. This mode, like contact transmission, is often the cause of cross-transmission among susceptible patients, and can easily cause an outbreak. Objects likely to harbor viable pathogens are known as fomites and includes common day use objects like stethoscopes, marking pens, ties, and ID lanyards. Studies have shown that stethoscopes are commonly colonized with S. aureus and MRSA, and that physicians have poor stethoscope cleaning practices [22]-[24]. Contaminated environmental surfaces are also an important aspect of this mode of transmission. Pathogens easily cross-transmit via bed rails, call buttons, trays, chairs, door handles, tabletops, and also through improperly cleaned equipment such as ultrasound machines or defibrillators.

Preventive measures

Below, we have compiled a concise summary of the most common preventive measures in the literature. Perioperative measures are broken down into preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative to highlight the many considerations before, during, and after a procedure. This is not meant to be conclusive, but rather, a quick resource from which a dialogue can be sparked regarding what more can be done to prevent nosocomial SSIs. For a more comprehensive look into grades of recommendations and levels of evidence, please refer to Bosco et al., Savage et al., or Fletcher et al. [25]-[27].

Hand hygiene

Improved hand hygiene is the most important preventive measure we can take. Yet compliance is often low. Healthcare workers often forget or don't spend enough time washing. The CDC recommends washing for at least 20 seconds or the duration of the "Happy Birthday" song sung twice [28]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a multimodal approach to improve hand hygiene compliance. In a study done during a two-year period in Costa Rica, Italy, Mali, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, they implemented their approach and found that overall compliance increased from 51.0% to 67.2% [29]. Their strategy consists of five main components: access, training and education, monitoring and feedback, visual reminders, and creation of culture. The WHO details 5 key moments hand hygiene should be practiced [30]:
  1. 1.

    Before touching a patient

     
  2. 2.

    Before clean and aseptic procedures

     
  3. 3.

    After contact with bodily fluids

     
  4. 4.

    After touching a patient

     
  5. 5.

    After touching a patient's surroundings

     

The question of which method of hand-washing is better, traditional hand-scrubbing or hand-rubbing with aqueous alcoholic solution has been studied. The general consensus is that if your hands are visibly dirty, traditional hand-scrubbing with soap and water is best. Otherwise, hand-rubbing with aqueous alcohol is comparable [27],[31]-[34]. A randomized equivalence trial compared the two and looked at a total of 4387 consecutive patients who underwent clean and clean-contaminated surgery. SSI rates were 55/2252 (2.44%) in hand-rubbing versus 53/2135 (2.48%) in hand-scrubbing [32]. However, compliance was much better in hand-rubbing, presumably due to ease and access, compared to hand-scrubbing (44% vs 28%). There was also better tolerance, less skin dryness, and irritation [32].

Directed antibiotic therapy

With the increased emergence and threat of multi-drug resistant microorganisms, narrow-spectrum, directed antibiotic therapy is imperative. Broad-spectrum antibiotics should be exercised with restraint and only used as an initial temporizing measure until a specific diagnosis of the inciting pathogen is reached. Subsequently, they should immediately be discontinued and substituted with narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Reduction of broad-spectrum antibiotic use can undoubtedly be curtailed with the aid of faster, more reliable molecular diagnostic techniques. Next generation methodologies such as PCR sequencing, sonication, and FISH have shown much promise, and have been proven superior to traditional culturing methods in terms of turnover, sensitivity, and accuracy [35]-[40]. The continued advancement of these molecular tools will revolutionize the way we detect and identify microorganisms, and ultimately permit rapid, tailored antimicrobial therapy from the very get-go.

Preoperative protocols

There are several preoperative protocols that show promise in decreasing incidence of HAIs. Some protocols, however, have little to no benefit, and energy and resources should therefore be shifted to those that yield a significant difference.

• Screening for Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA:

As mentioned, 25-40% of community is colonized with S. aureus [41]-[43]. The bacteria usually reside in the anterior nares. Carriers have been shown to be at higher risk of staphylococcus infections and are 2-9× as likely to have SSI [41]-[43]. They are also at higher risk of nosocomial blood stream infections and lower respiratory infections [44]-[46].

In 2002, Perl et al. [47] looked to determine if intranasal mupirocin reduced rate of S. aureus infections at surgical sites and prevents other nosocomial infections versus placebo. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, they randomly assigned patients, both carriers and non-carriers, to either the treatment arm or placebo arm. Their results indicated that the intervention did not significantly decrease rates of S.aureus SSI overall, but did significantly reduce the rate of nosocomial S. aureus among carriers (4.0% vs 7.7%) [47]. This suggested the intervention would be more beneficial for nasal carriers rather than an institutional-wide prophylactic treatment for all patients.

As such, a number of institutions implemented a screening process followed by decolonization. In one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study, rapid identification of carriers by polymerase chain reaction followed by treatment with mupirocin nasal ointment and chlorhexidine soap reduced nosocomial S. aureus infections. The rate of S. aureus infection was 3.4% (17 of 504 patients) in the treatment group versus 7.7% (32 of 413 patients) in the placebo group [48]. Similarly, a prospective cohort study of total joint replacement patients demonstrated a decrease in SSI rate in intervention patients from 2.7% (20/741) to 1.2% (17/1440) [49].

One of the concerns with prophylactic mupirocin administration is the development of resistance. In their study, Perl et al. [47] only identified 4 isolates resistant to mupirocin. Three were obtained from those not treated with mupirocin. They concluded that a single, short course did not appear to select for resistant isolates.

• Decolonizing hospital personnel:

Following the same principle as preoperative decolonization of patients, one preliminary study looked at the effects of decolonizing hospital personnel, specifically the surgical team [50]. Carriers were identified among team members (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses) and subsequently treated with intranasal mupirocin. Retrospectively, 1000 consecutive patients had yielded 6% SSI rate. Post-intervention, of 300 consecutive patients, there was a 0% SSI rate [50]. Undoubtedly, more studies are needed, but this preliminary finding is important since healthcare personnel are often at fault in the transmission of microorganisms. Institution-wide screening and decolonization of personnel may be a feasible and successful preventive measure. At present most hospital systems have no screening methodology for employees with regards to resistant microorganisms. This is in contrast to mandated tuberculosis screening, which overall has a significantly decreased impact on the healthcare system.

• Showering or bathing with skin antiseptics:

A Cochrane systematic review investigated the common practice of preoperative bathing/showering with skin antiseptics as a measure to reduce SSIs. They looked at 7 randomized controlled trials with a total of more than 10,000 patients that tested chlorhexidine solution against normal soap or no preoperative washing. They found no evidence suggesting a clear benefit [51]. Accordingly, it may be wiser to spend effort on more effective interventions.

• Antiseptic skin cloths:

Another proposed preoperative intervention is the local application of antiseptic solution at the planned surgical site. In a prospective RCT, Murray et al. [52] investigated the efficacy of the home application of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) cloth before shoulder surgery in decreasing the skin surface levels of bacteria. The overall positive culture rate in the treatment group vs control group was 66% vs 94% (p = 0.0008). The positive culture rate for coagulase-negative Staphyloccocus was 30% vs 70% (p = 0.0001) [52]. However, there were no infections in either group, so they were unable to directly correlate the reduction in culture rates with infection rates. Nevertheless, the culture rates do suggest a potential benefit, especially at the low cost of $3/package of 2 chorhexidine gluconate cloths [52].

In terms of definitive SSI rates, Eiselt [53] demonstrated its reduction in orthopedic patients undergoing joint replacements. Patients used a 2% CHG no-rinse cloth the night before the surgery and in the preoperative area immediately before the surgery. The control group was historical, prior to the intervention, and included 727 patients, and the treatment group, prospective, included 736 patients. A significant reduction in SSI rate was demonstrated after the implementation of CHG cloths (3.19% vs. 1.59%) [53].

Likewise, Graling et al. [54] conducted a prospective cohort study that included 284 patients as a historical control vs 335 patients who received CHG cloth intervention. The overall infection rate was decreased from 6.3% (18/284) to 2.1% (7/335) (p = 0.01). Their economic analysis differed slightly from Murray's. They estimated a total financial burden of $7 per patient, allotting $2/patient for nursing time for patient education and assistance. This is still considerable cheaper than the costs associated with patient morbidity and increased length of stay due to a SSI (estimated at ~ $25,000 per SSI) [55].

• Hair removal:

A Cochrane systematic review investigated the routine practice of preoperative hair removal. They looked to determine if routine removal compared to no removal and the timing or methods of removal influenced the rate of SSIs. 14 trials were included. No statistically significant evidence was found that indicated hair removal influences SSI rate; however, evidence did suggest that if hair removal was necessary to facilitate surgery or application of adhesive dressings, clipping compared with shaving reduces the rate of SSIs [56]. Three trials (1343 participants) compared the two, and demonstrated significantly more SSIs associated with shaving than clipping (Relative Risk 2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80) [56] (Table 1).
Table 1

Summary of preoperative interventions

Preoperative interventions

Summary

References

Screening for MSSA and MRSA

• Screening and prophylactic decolonization may prevent nosocomial S. aureus infections in carriers

[47]-[49]

Decolonizing hospital personnel

• Preliminary study finds reduction of SSI rate with decolonization of hospital personnel carriers

[50]

Showering or bathing with antiseptics

• Cochrane review of 7 RCTs finds no evidence of clear benefit

[51]

Antiseptic skin cloths

• Preoperative application of CHG cloths on planned surgical sites decreases skin surface levels of bacteria and may reduce SSI rate

[52]-[54]

Hair removal

• Cochrane review finds no evidence that hair removal has any bearing on SSI rates

[56]

• However, clipping, compared to shaving, is associated with decreased incidence of SSIs

Intraoperative protocols

• Antibiotics:

Prophylactic administration of antibiotics has been proven effective in reducing the rate of postoperative infections for orthopedic, neurological, and spinal surgeries. In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of spine fusion surgery, Baker et al. reported a significant reduction in SSIs, up to 63%, odds ratio 0.37 (95% CI 0.17-0.78) [57]. Similarly, other studies have substantiated the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in general orthopedics, total joint replacement, and spinal surgery [58],[59].

Several guidelines exist for the prophylactic administration of antibiotics. Generally, they advocate a broad-spectrum antibiotic with excellent coverage of S. aureus such as a first or second-generation cephalosporin (e.g. cefazolin or cefuroxime). For those with beta-lactam allergies, clindamycin or vancomycin should be administered instead. Moreover, those who are at high risk of colonization with MRSA or have had a previous MRSA infection should be considered for prophylaxis with vancomycin.

As for timing and duration, high serum and tissue levels of antibiotic should be sufficiently obtained prior to the first incision. Therapy should be initiated within one hour prior to incision, and stopped within 24 hours of closure. Duration greater than 24 hours may lead to superinfection with drug-resistant organisms [60]. For surgical procedures that are prolonged > 4 hours or incur > 1500 mL of estimated blood loss, a re-dosing is recommended [61]. Lastly, the compliance of timing, duration, and selection of antibiotics is improved from 65% to 99% if the protocol is incorporated into the "time-out" [62].

• Skin preparation:

Prior to incision, the surgical site is often prepared by sterilizing the skin. Most commonly, a commercial skin antiseptic solution is applied such as Chloraprep (2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol), DuraPrep (0.7% iodine and 74% isopropyl alcohol), or Betadine (0.75% iodine scrub, 1.0% iodine paint). Several studies have been conducted to compare the efficacy of these common preparation solutions. Ostrander et al. reported that ChloraPrep was superior to DuraPrep and Technicare in terms of eradicating bacteria from the skin, with decreased rates of positive cultures (30% vs. 65% vs. 95%, respectively, p < 0.0001) [63]. On the other hand, Savage et al. found no statistically significant difference in the rate of positive cultures between ChloraPrep and DuraPrep in a prospective study of 100 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery (0% vs 6%, p = 0.25) [64].

As for infection rates, a prospective cohort study that enrolled 3,209 patients found that DuraPrep was associated with the lowest rate compared with Betadine and ChloraPrep (3.9% vs. 6.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.002) [65]. Conversely, a multicenter prospective RCT reported ChloraPrep was associated with a lower rate of SSI than Betadine (9.5% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.004, risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.41-0.85) [66].

As it stands, there is no clear evidence that one preparation solution is the better choice in effectively lowering rate of SSI.

• Wound irrigation:

Wound irrigation is one of the oldest surgical mantras, and many a medical student has heard their attendings singsong "dilution is the solution to pollution". Irrigation helps to remove loose, necrotic tissue, particulate debris, and microorganisms from within the surgical site. It is considered the most important intraoperative step in reducing the risk of infection. Traditionally, sterile normal saline has been used despite concrete, supporting evidence [67]. In fact, one prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study found that there was no statistically significant difference in rates of SSI between irrigation with saline vs tap water [68].

Irrigation with other solutions has also been suggested. One prospective RCT looked at the efficacy of dilute betadine irrigation (3.5% povidone-iodine solution) in the prevention of postoperative infection in spinal surgery. The study demonstrated a remarkably lower infection rate with dilute betadine solution (0%, n = 208) versus normal saline irrigation (3.5%, n = 206) (p = 0.007) [69]. No adverse side effects or events were reported.

• Thermoregulation:

Intraoperative hypothermia has been shown to increase the risk of SSIs, likely as a consequence of the reduction in peripheral circulation [70]. This reduction ultimately limits oxygen concentrations in the tissues, especially in the wound, where the body needs it most to fight off infections. Moreover, hypothermia directly impairs immune function. Warming patients have been demonstrated to reduce infection rates in colorectal surgery [70]. Melling et al. [71] looked at warming patients before clean surgeries (locally or systemically) and found the infection rate was 14% in non-warmed patients (19/139) versus 5% (13/277) in warmed patients. Among warmed patients, the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in infection rates between local and systemic warming.

These studies suggest that maintenance of perioperative normothermia may be a worthwhile endeavor, especially since it is easily implemented.

• Antiseptic-coated sutures:

Sutures coated with the antiseptic triclosan have been developed to reduce SSIs. Edmiston et al. [72] evaluated its effectiveness in inhibiting bacterial growth and adherence in an in vitro model. There was > 75% reduction in gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial adherence to the antimicrobial suture. Clinically, in a prospective, double-blinded RCT in pediatric neurosurgical patients, Rozzelle et al. [73] demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in infection rates in those treated with antimicrobial suture (4.3% vs 21%, p = 0.038) undergoing cerebrospinal fluid shunt procedures. Unfortunately, the cost-effectiveness of these sutures is yet to be determined. The antiseptic-coated sutures cost 7% to 10% more than standard uncoated ones. Nevertheless, they may be justified in high-risk patients, as was the case with Rozzelle's patients, in which they underwent a procedure usually associated with 5-15% risk of infection [73].

• Operating room traffic:

Traffic in and out of the OR increases bacterial counts, and has been demonstrated to increase infection rates. The opening and closing of doors likely disrupts the airflow, allowing microbes to settle in the air directly above the surgical field. Panahi et al. [74] looked at the incidence of door opening during primary and revision total joint arthroplasty procedures. The study found that door openings averaged 0.65 and 0.84 per minute for primary and revision procedures, respectively. The average total door openings per procedure were 60 in primary cases and 135 in revisions [74].

The intervention here is clearly to limit traffic flow. This requires education and detailed communication among surgeons and OR personnel to aid preparation of the OR with essential instruments and components for scheduled procedures (Table 2).
Table 2

Summary of intraoperative interventions

Intraoperative interventions

Summary

References

Prophylactic antibiotics

• Prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing SSI rates

[57]-[62]

• Discontinue within 24 hours of closure to prevent superinfection

• Redosing may be beneficial for procedures > 4 hours or if EBL > 1.5 L

• Timing, duration, selection of antibiotics should be incorporated into the "time-out" to improve compliance

Skin preparation

• No clear evidence that one preparation solution is superior

[63]-[66]

Wound irrigation

• Important to remove loose, necrotic tissue, debris, and microorganisms from surgical site

[67]-[69]

• No difference in infection rates between saline and tap water

• Dilute betadine solution may be of benefit

Thermoregulation

• Maintaining perioperative normothermia may reduce SSI rates

[70],[71]

Antiseptic-coated sutures

• Effective in reducing SSI rates in neurosurgical patients, but cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined

[72],[73]

Operating room traffic

• Limit OR traffic flow

[74]

Postoperative management

• Drains and blood transfusions:

A Cochrane review evaluated the occurrence of infections in relation to closed suction drainage after orthopedic surgery. 36 studies were included, involving 5464 participants with 5697 surgical wounds identified [75]. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in infection rates between those with drains and those without. They concluded that there is no clear evidence that supports the routine use of closed suction drains in orthopedic surgery.

The aforementioned study did however find that drain use was often associated with the need for blood transfusions. Of course, blood transfusions carry its own risk of infections with blood-borne bacteria, viruses, or parasites – albeit a very minimal one. The more pressing risk associated with blood transfusions is the increased length of hospital stay and SSI [76]. It is thought that transfusion evokes an immunomodulation, which affects wounds and increases risk of infection [77]. Bower et al. [78] found that patients who received transfusions were nearly twice as likely to have an infection than those that did not. More studies are needed to pin down whether it's a causal relationship or merely a confounding finding such that people who are at risk of needing a blood transfusion are equally at risk for SSIs.

Regardless, blood transfusions do lead to an increased length of stay as demonstrated by Weber et al. [76]. This in it of itself is a risk factor for infection, and every effort should be made to judiciously discern the need for a transfusion. Preoperative assessment of hemoglobin and hematocrit levels and monitoring for symptomatic anemia rather than lab results alone would be beneficial.

• Wound management:

Postoperatively, the goal is to keep the surgical site clean and dry. The CDC recommends surgical dressings for 24–48 hours [79]. However, any soiled or blood-soaked dressings should be replaced immediately. Otherwise, any microorganisms nearby can become a source of infection. Dressings should also be chosen carefully to ensure they stay intact.

Antimicrobial dressings are available and they may serve to reduce risk of infection. Silver-based dressings, in particular, have been shown to be effective in reducing the rate of mediastinitis following cardiac surgery [80].

Another common wound dressing is the use of negative pressure wound therapy. There is not much literature on whether it helps decrease risks of infection. But by drawing out fluid from the wound, completely sealing the wound, and cutting down the frequency of dressing changes, theoretically it should help reduce the incidence of SSIs.

• Urinary tract infections:

Although not strictly a SSI, urinary tract infections are important to mention in the context of postoperative management, since it is a common complication. The details, however, are beyond the scope of this review. Some important principles to keep in mind are the following: avoid catherization when possible and remove as soon as possible; always practice aseptic technique during insertion and maintenance; consider the use of suprapubic and condom catheters in lieu of urethral catheters, since they have a lower rate of infection [81]. Finally, in high-risk patients, silver alloy catheters may have some antimicrobial benefit [82] (Table 3).
Table 3

Summary of postoperative interventions

Postoperative interventions

Summary

References

Drains and blood transfusion

• Cochrane review finds no difference in infection rates between those with drains and those without

[75]-[78]

• Blood transfusions increase risk of infection and length of hospital stay

Wound management

• Keep surgical dressings clean and dry Antimicrobial dressings may help reduce infections

[79],[80]

Urinary tract infection

• Avoid catherization when possible, and always remove as soon as possible

[81],[82]

• Suprapubic and condom catheters have lower rates of infection

• In high-risk patients, silver alloy catheters may be of benefit

Non-operative preventive measures

Briefly, we would like to mention some other preventive measures. These are not specifically related to SSIs but are more general measures. The multifactorial etiology of health-care associated infections precludes successful prevention in a vacuum of its subtypes (i.e. SSIs, UTIs, BSIs, PNEUs), so it is important to be cognizant of these other measures. For more information, Curtis provides a detailed review on a number of these interventions [83].

• Cleaning:

Proper cleaning is an important aspect of preventing health-care associated infections. Contaminated environmental surfaces often lead to cross-transmissions, and increase rates of infection. Hospitals should train cleaning personnel adequately, monitor performance regularly, and provide feedback. Moreover, they should make hospital cleaning personnel aware of their vital role in the ultimate health of the patients. A prospective study in Illinois compared rates of VRE infection before and after a cleaning educational program. Rates of VRE infection fell by 64% [95% CI: 0.19-0.68] [84].

There are few studies looking at which chemicals are best to clean surfaces. However, some studies demonstrate the effectiveness of a bleach solution. One study compared the use of 1:10 hypochlorite (bleach) solution with the use of a quaternary ammonium solution and found that the former was associated with a significantly lower rate of C. difficile infection than the latter. Another study found that unbuffered 1:10 hypochlorite solution reduced the frequency of positive C. difficile cultures in patient rooms from 31% to 16%. Finally, a study of 17 rooms that housed VRE-positive patients found that prior to cleaning, 16/17 (94%) of the rooms contained viable VRE. After thorough cleaning with a 10% bleach solution, the amount of viable VRE decreased to 0 (0%) (p < 0.001) [85].

Hydrogen peroxide vapor has also been shown to be an effective decontamination method. A British study compared manual cleaning with hydrogen peroxide vapor. Prior to manual cleaning, in 10 surgical ward rooms, 89% of 124 swab samples were positive for MRSA and 66% remained positive after manual cleaning. In comparison, 6 other surgical ward rooms were swabbed and 72% of 85 swabs were positive prior to cleaning. After hydrogen peroxide treatment, only 1% of 85 remained positive [86]. Another study investigated the feasibility of routine hydrogen peroxide decontamination in a busy hospital. One drawback has always been the mean time for decontamination with hydrogen peroxide (~90-120 minutes). The study concluded that the additional time is offset by the drastic improvement in surface hygiene, and reduction in nosocomial pathogens. They assert its feasibility in a busy hospital with a mean occupancy rate of 94% [87].

• Waterborne transmission:

Studies have found that the replacement of tap water with sterile water for drinking, bathing, and procedures can significantly reduce infection rates [19]. Other measures include decontaminating the hospital water supply. This can be done by heating water to more than 50°C or with UV light treatment, both of which has been shown to reduce levels of Legionella[88],[89]. Another effective method is copper-silver-based ionization systems, has been shown to reduce molds and gram-negative bacteria such as P. aeuroginosa and Actinetobacter baumannii in addition to Legionella[20],[90],[91]. One hospital found legionella infection rates drop from 2.45 cases to 0.18 cases per 1000 discharges subsequent installation of a copper-silver ionization system [91].

• Air filtration/treatment:

High-efficiency particulate air filters can help reduce aerosolized pathogens and decrease infection rates. Studies have reported its use decreases airborne aspergillus concentrations and aspergillus infections [92],[93]. Moreover, the use of portable filters has been demonstrated to significantly reduce airborne levels of MRSA and P. aeruginosa[94].

Adequate outdoor air ventilation is also important to help circulate and dilute air that may be ridden with airborne pathogens. Indeed, poor ventilation is often associated with higher rates of acute respiratory disease [95].

• Anti-microbial copper alloy:

As mentioned above, touch surfaces are often a source of contamination and cross-transmission. Surfaces can often harbor pathogens for days and even months, becoming a reservoir of infection. Incorporating anti-microbial copper alloy into these surfaces has been suggested as a possible solution. Copper's basic chemical properties and tendency to produce hydroxyl radicals and cations gives it a unique broad-spectrum biocidal ability. In vitro studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in rapidly reducing bacterial concentration by 7 logs within just 2 hours [96]-[98].

A multi-center study looked at its clinical application in the ICUs of 3 hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to rooms with and without copper alloy surfaces, and the rates of HAIs and/or colonization with MRSA or VRE were compared. Six objects were fabricated from copper alloy, four of which were identical among the three hospitals: bed rails, overbed tables, IV poles, and arms of visitor's chair. Results indicated that the rate of HAI and/or MRSA or VRE colonization in copper rooms were significantly lower than non-copper rooms (0.071 vs. 0.123, p = 0.020). The rate for just HAI was decreased 58% from 0.081 to 0.034 (p = 0.013) [98].

Another study found that the combined burden of MRSA and VRE were 96.8% lower on copper surfaces than current plastic, wood, metal, and painted surfaces. Copper surfaces were also found to continuously limit microbial bioburden, achieving same levels as terminal cleaning [99]. Copper-alloy surfaces are proving to be a promising intervention (Table 4).
Table 4

Summary of non-operative preventive measures

Non-operative preventive measures

Summary

References

Cleaning

• Hospital cleaning personnel should be made aware of their vital role in decreasing HAIs; they should be trained appropriately, adequately, and monitored

[84]-[87]

• Bleach solutions and hydrogen peroxide vapor have been shown to be effective decontaminating agents

Waterborne transmission

• Replacement of tap water with sterile water may reduce infection rates

[88]-[91]

• Decontaminating hospital water supply may be an alternative

Air filtration

• High-efficiency particulate air filters can help reduce airborne levels of aspergillus, MRSA, and P. aeruginosa

[92]-[95]

Anti-microbial copper alloy

• Incorporating copper-alloy in hospital surfaces may limit contamination and cross-transmission

[96]-[99]

Developments

At Brigham and Women's Hospital, in the Laboratory for Tissue Repair and Gene Transfer, we have developed a wound enclosure device, which we have previously shown to be a promising wound healing modality without any adverse side effects [100]-[103]. It consists of a polyurethane chamber that envelops the wounds, creating a controlled incubator-like microenvironment. This platform allows us to maintain optimal conditions for wound healing while concomitantly providing both topical antibiotics and analgesics to the wound [100]-[103]. In addition to wound healing improvement, we have realized its potential as a novel intervention for health-care associated surgical site infections. These chambers eliminate the need for daily dressing changes, since fluid can easily be aspirated and sampled from the chamber itself, and the clear chamber allows easy visual inspection of the wounds, facilitating hospital rounds. This would significantly decrease the risk of contamination from hospital personnel.

Using a porcine model, we have been able to dramatically decrease bacteria concentrations in both wound fluid and tissue by adding topical antibiotics (up to 1,000 minimal inhibitory concentration) within our wound chambers, even after inoculation of wounds with 108 colony forming units/mL (unpublished data). Moreover, our preliminary studies indicate its ability to rapidly decrease bacterial counts of endogenous flora. This has great implications, since, as mentioned, endogenous flora is a common source of contamination that leads to SSI. Similar to the antiseptic skin cloths discussed above, which have been shown to reduce infection rates, these chambers may be a safe, more efficacious alternative. Theoretically, these chambers could be placed preoperatively on the surgical site to rapidly decolonize endogenous flora, and also be placed as a wound dressing post-operatively to further prevent SSIs. Further studies are planned, but at this point, it looks to be a promising novel intervention that could easily be implemented.

Numbers and costs

Using data from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system, National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), and the American Hospital Association (AHA) Survey, Klevens et al. estimated 1.7 million HAIs occurred in U.S. hospitals in 2002. Among these, approximately 155,000 deaths occurred, 99,000 of which were considered caused by or significantly associated with the HAI [3]. This puts HAIs in the top ten leading causes of death, compared to CDC's 2010 data for Alzheimer's disease (83,494), diabetes (69,071), and kidney diseases (50,476) [104]. In another study, Scott et al. estimated that the annual direct cost of HAIs to U.S. hospitals ranges from $28.4 to $45 billion [4]. With a high estimate that 70% of HAIs are preventable by current available strategies, the economic benefits of prevention ranges from $25.0 to $31.5 billion. With a low estimate that 20% are preventable, the savings range from $5.7 to $6.8 billion, which is still comparable to the healthcare costs of stroke ($6.7 billion), diabetes mellitus with complications ($4.5 billion), and chronic obstructive lung disease (4.2 billion) [105].

Surgical site infections alone account for roughly 290,000 of the total HAIs, and are estimated to cause 8,000 deaths, a case fatality rate of 2.8%. They are the second most frequently reported HAI [3]. As for the attributable costs of SSIs, Anderson et al. gives a low estimate of $10,443 per infection and Stone et al. gives it a high estimate of $25,546 per infection [55],[106]. From a patient perspective, wound infections are the second most commonly experienced adverse event (14%), second only to medication errors (19%) [107]. Commonly, SSIs increase the hospital length of stay (LOS) on average between 7.3 days and 14.3 days [108]. Moreover, they increase the risk of re-admittance within 30 days by 5 times, double the mortality rate, and decrease quality of life [109],[110]. In a systematic review, Umscheid et al. estimated that as much as 55% of SSIs may be preventable. This would equate to approximately 75,526 to 156,862 preventable infections per year and subsequently, 2,133 to 4,431 preventable deaths [111].

Final thoughts

Surgical site infections remain a tremendous issue in the 21st century. There are several successful preventive measures described in the literature; however, an institution-wide adoption of several of these interventions is often few and far between. Complacency in this matter is almost tantamount to negligence. In the spirit of primum non nocera, we should ever strive to aggressively lower infection rates as much as we can. Additionally, with the rapidly changing climate of our healthcare industry, where the way we practice and the quality of our care is increasingly scrutinized, infection prevention should be an utmost priority.

Although, it is doubtful one single preventive measure will ever be the be-all and end-all for our problems, there is hope that bundles of multiple measures can dramatically reduce the rate of SSIs – a testament to Aristotle's "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" [112]-[114]. Alexander et al. suggests that adherence to current guidelines and available interventions can reduce infection rates to less than 0.5% in clean wounds, less than 1% in clean contaminated wounds, and less than 2% in highly contaminated wounds [115]. With a similar mindset, the Mayo Clinic in Florida instituted multiple interventions as an SSI Bundle. Thompson et al. [116] details their institution's experience and results in their paper aptly titled, "Chasing Zero". During the study period between May 2008 and June 2010, they achieved a 57% decrease in SSI rate with an estimated savings of nearly $1 million (Class I SSI, clean wounds, rate from 1.78% to 0.51% and Class II SSI, clean-contaminated, rate from 2.82% to 1.44%) [116].

Conclusion

Health-care associated infections continue to cause significant patient morbidity and mortality and account for a great deal of healthcare costs. Nevertheless, we are optimistic that together we are ever moving towards improving patient care. Though many successful preventive measures exist, more can always be done in terms of research and practicing evidence-based care. We believe that pushing for an organized institution-wide adoption of multiple interventions may be the key to reducing infection rates. No doubt each institution differs in capacity and resources, so a discussion is necessary at each institution on what is feasible. We hope this review and the work of many others before us can help inspire additional dialogue regarding this matter.

Abbreviations

HAI: 

Healthcare-associated infection

SSI: 

Surgical site infection

CDC: 

Centers for disease control

NHSN: 

National healthcare safety network

UTI: 

Urinary tract infections

BSI: 

Bloodstream infections

PNEU: 

Pneumonia

MRSA: 

Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus

VRE: 

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci faecium

CHG: 

Chlorhexidine gluconate

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School

References

  1. Millard C: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Clark FC: A brief history of antiseptic surgery. Med Libr Hist J. 1907, 5: 145-172.Google Scholar
  3. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Pollock DA, Cardo DM: Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep. 2007, 122: 160-166.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Scott RD, Douglas R: The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in US Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. 2009Google Scholar
  5. Locksley RM, Cohen ML, Quinn TC, Tompkins LS, Coyle MB, Kirihara JM, Counts GW: Multiply antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: introduction, transmission, and evolution of nosocomial infection. Ann Intern Med. 1982, 97: 317-324.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA: CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008, 36: 309-332.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG: CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992, 13: 606-608.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. McGowan JE: Changing etiology of nosocomial bacteremia and fungemia and other hospital-acquired infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1985, 7 (Suppl 3): S357-S370.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Owens CD, Stoessel K: Surgical site infections: epidemiology, microbiology and prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2008, 70 (Suppl 2): 3-10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Hummel RP: Surgical considerations of endogenous infections–sources, types, and methods of control. Surg Clin North Am. 1968, 48: 227-240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans CA, Smith WM, Johnston EA, Giblett ER: Bacterial flora of the normal human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 1950, 15: 305-324.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiller K, Selkin BA, Murakawa GJ: Skin microflora and bacterial infections of the skin. J Invest Derm Symp Proc. 2001, 6: 170-174.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI: The human microbiome project. Nature. 2007, 449 (7164): 804-810.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Wong VW, Martindale RG, Longaker MT, Gurtner GC: From germ theory to germ therapy: skin microbiota, chronic wounds, and probiotics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013, 132: 854e-861e.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenthal M, Goldberg D, Aiello A, Larson E, Foxman B: Skin microbiota: microbial community structure and its potential association with health and disease. Infect Genet Evol. 2011, 11: 839-848.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Talmor M, Barie PS: Microbiota in "austere" environments: belly button banter and other (navel) fluff. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011, 12: 427-428.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hidron AI, Edwards JR, Patel J, Horan TC, Sievert DM, Pollock DA, Fridkin SK: NHSN annual update: antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: annual summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006–2007. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008, 29: 996-1011.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim DH, Spencer M, Davidson SM, Li L, Shaw JD, Gulczynski D, Hunter DJ, Martha JF, Miley GB, Parazin SJ, Dejoie P, Richmond JC: Institutional prescreening for detection and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010, 92: 1820-1826.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Anaissie EJ, Penzak SR, Dignani MC: The hospital water supply as a source of nosocomial infections: a plea for action. Arch Intern Med. 2002, 162: 1483-PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Pedro-Botet ML, Sanchez I, Sabria M, Sopena N, Mateu L, Garcia-Nunez M, Rey-Joly C: Impact of copper and silver ionization on fungal colonization of the water supply in health care centers: implications for immunocompromised patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2007, 45: 84-86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Warris A, Onken A, Gaustad P, Janssen W, van der Lee H, Verweij PE, Abrahamsen TG: Point-of-use filtration method for the prevention of fungal contamination of hospital water. J Hosp Infect. 2010, 76: 56-59.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones JS, Hoerle D, Riekse R: Stethoscopes: a potential vector of infection?. Ann Emerg Med. 1995, 26: 296-299.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith MA, Mathewson JJ, Ulert IA, Scerpella EG, Ericsson CD: Contaminated stethoscopes revisited. Arch Intern Med. 1996, 156: 82-84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Bernard L, Kereveur A, Durand D, Gonot J, Goldstein F, Mainardi JL, Acar J, Carlet J: Bacterial contamination of hospital physicians' stethoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999, 20: 626-628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bosco JA, Slover JD, Haas JP: Perioperative strategies for decreasing infection: a comprehensive evidence-based approach. Instr Course Lect. 2010, 59: 619-628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Savage JW, Anderson PA: An update on modifiable factors to reduce the risk of surgical site infections. Spine J. 2013, 13 (9): 1017-1029.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Fletcher N, Sofianos D, Berkes MB, Obremskey WT: Prevention of perioperative infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007, 89: 1605-1618.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care is Safer Care. Geneva: WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee; 2009.Google Scholar
  29. Allegranzi B, Gayet-Ageron A, Damani N, Bengaly L, McLaws ML, Moro ML, Memish Z, Urroz O, Richet H, Storr J, Donaldson L, Pittet D: Global implementation of WHO's multimodal strategy for improvement of hand hygiene: a quasi-experimental study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013, 13: 843-851.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sax H, Allegranzi B, Uckay I, Larson E, Boyce J, Pittet D: `My five moments for hand hygiene': a user-centred design approach to understand, train, monitor and report hand hygiene. J Hosp Infect. 2007, 67: 9-21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Bryce EA, Spence D, Roberts FJ: An in-use evaluation of an alcohol-based pre-surgical hand disinfectant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001, 22: 635-639.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Heller R, Le Roux Y, von Theobald P, Bensadoun H, Bouvet A, Lemarchand F, Le Coutour X: Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study. JAMA. 2002, 288: 722-727.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Grabsch EA, Mitchell DJ, Hooper J, Turnidge JD: In-use efficacy of a chlorhexidine in alcohol surgical rub: a comparative study. ANZ J Surg. 2004, 74: 769-772.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Tanner J, Swarbrook S, Stuart J: Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008, 23 (1): CD00428-Google Scholar
  35. Braun SD, Monecke S, Thurmer A, Ruppelt A, Makarewicz O, Pletz M, Reibetaig A, Slickers P, Ehricht R: Rapid identification of carbapenemase genes in gram-negative bacteria with an oligonucleotide microarray-based assay. PLoS One. 2014, 9: e102232-PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Caliendo AM: Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2011, 52 (Suppl 4): S326-S330.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Foxman B, Goldberg D, Murdock C, Xi C, Gilsdorf JR: Conceptualizing human microbiota: from multicelled organ to ecological community. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2008, 2008: 613979-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Huebinger RM, Liu MM, Dowd SE, Rivera-Chavez FA, Boynton J, Carey C, Hawkins K, Minshall CT, Wolf SE, Minei JP, Barber RC: Examination with next-generation sequencing technology of the bacterial microbiota in bronchoalveolar lavage samples after traumatic injury. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013, 14: 275-282.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Kobayashi N, Bauer TW, Tuohy MJ, Fujishiro T, Procop GW: Brief ultrasonication improves detection of biofilm-formative bacteria around a metal implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007, 457: 210-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Malic S, Hill KE, Hayes A, Percival SL, Thomas DW, Williams DW: Detection and identification of specific bacteria in wound biofilms using peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA FISH). Microbiology. 2009, 155: 2603-2611.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Perl TM, Golub JE: New approaches to reduce Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial infection rates: treating S. aureus nasal carriage. Ann Pharmacother. 1998, 32: S7-S16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H: Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997, 10: 505-520.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wenzel RP, Perl TM: The significance of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect. 1995, 31: 13-24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Mest DR, Wong DH, Shimoda KJ, Mulligan ME, Wilson SE: Nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission to the surgical intensive care unit increases the risk of infection. Anesth Analg. 1994, 78: 644-650.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Pujol M, Pena C, Pallares R, Ariza J, Ayats J, Dominguez MA, Gudiol F: Nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia among nasal carriers of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible strains. Am J Med. 1996, 100: 509-516.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Campbell W, Hendrix E, Schwalbe R, Fattom A, Edelman R: Head-injured patients who are nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus are at high risk for Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 1999, 27: 798-801.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Perl TM, Cullen JJ, Wenzel RP, Zimmerman MB, Pfaller MA, Sheppard D, Twombley J, French PP, Herwaldt LA: Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med. 2002, 346: 1871-1877.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, Bogaers D, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Roosendaal R, Troelstra A, Box AT, Voss A, van der Tweel I, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Vos MC: Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010, 362: 9-17.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Rao N, Cannella BA, Crossett LS, Yates AJ, McGough RL, Hamilton CW: Preoperative screening/decolonization for Staphylococcus aureus to prevent orthopedic surgical site infection: prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011, 26: 1501-1507.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Portigliatti Barbos M, Mognetti B, Pecoraro S, Picco W, Veglio V: Decolonization of orthopedic surgical team S. aureus carriers: impact on surgical-site infections. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010, 11: 47-49.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster J, Osborne S: Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 9:Google Scholar
  52. Murray MR, Saltzman MD, Gryzlo SM, Terry MA, Woodward CC, Nuber GW: Efficacy of preoperative home use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011, 20: 928-933.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Eiselt D: Presurgical skin preparation with a novel 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth reduces rates of surgical site infection in orthopaedic surgical patients. Orthop Nurs. 2009, 28: 141-145.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Graling PR, Vasaly FW: Effectiveness of 2% CHG cloth bathing for reducing surgical site infections. AORN J. 2013, 97: 547-551.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone PW, Braccia D, Larson E: Systematic review of economic analyses of health care-associated infections. Am J Infect Control. 2005, 33: 501-509.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K: Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, 3: CD004122-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Barker FG: Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic therapy in spinal surgery: a meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2002, 51: 391-400. discussion 400–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Henley MB, Jones RE, Wyatt RW, Hofmann A, Cohen RL: Prophylaxis with cefamandole nafate in elective orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986, 209: 249-254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lidwell OM, Elson RA, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D: Ultraclean air and antibiotics for prevention of postoperative infection A multicenter study of 8,052 joint replacement operations. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987, 58: 4-13.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Slobogean GP, Kennedy SA, Davidson D, O'Brien PJ: Single- versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical treatment of closed fractures: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2008, 22: 264-269.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Dehne MG, Muhling J, Sablotzki A, Nopens H, Hempelmann G: Pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery and blood-saving techniques. Orthopedics. 2001, 24: 665-669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenberg AD, Wambold D, Kraemer L, Begley-Keyes M, Zuckerman SL, Singh N, Cohen MM, Bennett MV: Ensuring appropriate timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008, 90: 226-232.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Ostrander RV, Botte MJ, Brage ME: Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in foot and ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87: 980-985.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Savage JW, Weatherford BM, Sugrue PA, Nolden MT, Liu JC, Song JK, Haak MH: Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in lumbar spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012, 94: 490-494.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Swenson BR, Hedrick TL, Metzger R, Bonatti H, Pruett TL, Sawyer RG: Effects of preoperative skin preparation on postoperative wound infection rates: a prospective study of 3 skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009, 30: 964-971.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH: Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010, 362: 18-26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Fernandez R, Griffiths R: Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012, 2:Google Scholar
  68. Weiss EA, Oldham G, Lin M, Foster T, Quinn JV: Water is a safe and effective alternative to sterile normal saline for wound irrigation prior to suturing: a prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial.BMJ Open 2013, 3(1). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001504.,Google Scholar
  69. Cheng MT, Chang MC, Wang ST, Yu WK, Liu CL, Chen TH: Efficacy of dilute betadine solution irrigation in the prevention of postoperative infection of spinal surgery. Spine. 2005, 30: 1689-1693.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R: Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med. 1996, 334: 1209-1215.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Melling AC, Ali B, Scott EM, Leaper DJ: Effects of preoperative warming on the incidence of wound infection after clean surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001, 358: 876-880.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Goheen MP, Krepel CJ, Johnson CP, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB: Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: can antibacterial-coated sutures reduce the risk of microbial contamination?. J Am Coll Surg. 2006, 203: 481-489.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Rozzelle CJ, Leonardo J, Li V: Antimicrobial suture wound closure for cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2008, 2: 111-117.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Panahi P, Stroh M, Casper DS, Parvizi J, Austin MS: Operating room traffic is a major concern during total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012, 470: 2690-2694.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Parker MJ, Livingstone V, Clifton R, McKee A: Closed suction surgical wound drainage after orthopaedic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 3: CD001825-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Weber EW, Slappendel R, Prins MH, van der Schaaf DB, Durieux ME, Strumper D: Perioperative blood transfusions and delayed wound healing after hip replacement surgery: effects on duration of hospitalization. Anesth Analg. 2005, 100: 1416-1421. table of contentsPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Vamvakas EC, Blajchman MA: Transfusion-related immunomodulation (TRIM): an update. Blood Rev. 2007, 21: 327-348.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Bower WF, Cheung CS, Lai RW, Underwood MJ, van Hasselt CA: An audit of risk factors for wound infection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement. Hong Kong Med J. 2008, 14: 371-378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR: Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999, 20: 250-278. quiz 279–280PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Huckfeldt R, Redmond C, Mikkelson D, Finley PJ, Lowe C, Robertson J: A clinical trial to investigate the effect of silver nylon dressings on mediastinitis rates in postoperative cardiac sternotomy incisions. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2008, 54: 36-41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA: Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010, 31: 319-326.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Saint S, Lipsky BA: Preventing catheter-related bacteriuria: should we? Can we? How?. Arch Intern Med. 1999, 159: 800-808.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Curtis LT: Prevention of hospital-acquired infections: review of non-pharmacological interventions. J Hosp Infect. 2008, 69: 204-219.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, Lyle EA, van de Vijver DA, Weinstein RA: Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis. 2006, 42: 1552-1560.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC, Rao A, Sethi AK, Yadavalli GK, Donskey CJ: Reduction of Clostridium Difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis. 2007, 7: 61-PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. French GL, Otter JA, Shannon KP, Adams NM, Watling D, Parks MJ: Tackling contamination of the hospital environment by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a comparison between conventional terminal cleaning and hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination. J Hosp Infect. 2004, 57: 31-37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Otter JA, Puchowicz M, Ryan D, Salkeld JA, Cooper TA, Havill NL, Tuozzo K, Boyce JM: Feasibility of routinely using hydrogen peroxide vapor to decontaminate rooms in a busy United States hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009, 30: 574-577.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Sabria M, Yu VL: Hospital-acquired legionellosis: solutions for a preventable infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002, 2: 368-373.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Farr BM, Gratz JC, Tartaglino JC, Getchell-White SI, Groschell DH: Evaluation of ultraviolet light for disinfection of hospital water contaminated with Legionella. Lancet. 1988, 2: 669-672.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Huang HI, Shih HY, Lee CM, Yang TC, Lay JJ, Lin YE: In vitro efficacy of copper and silver ions in eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Acinetobacter baumannii: implications for on-site disinfection for hospital infection control. Water Res. 2008, 42: 73-80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Modol J, Sabria M, Reynaga E, Pedro-Botet ML, Sopena N, Tudela P, Casas I, Rey-Joly C: Hospital-acquired legionnaires disease in a university hospital: impact of the copper-silver ionization system. Clin Infect Dis. 2007, 44: 263-265.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Hahn T, Cummings KM, Michalek AM, Lipman BJ, Segal BH, McCarthy PL: Efficacy of high-efficiency particulate air filtration in preventing aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002, 23: 525-531.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Loo VG, Bertrand C, Dixon C, Vitye D, DeSalis B, McLean AP, Brox A, Robson HG: Control of construction-associated nosocomial aspergillosis in an antiquated hematology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996, 17: 360-364.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Boswell TC, Fox PC: Reduction in MRSA environmental contamination with a portable HEPA-filtration unit. J Hosp Infect. 2006, 63: 47-54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Brundage JF, Scott RM, Lednar WM, Smith DW, Miller RN: Building-associated risk of febrile acute respiratory diseases in Army trainees. JAMA. 1988, 259: 2108-2112.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Warnes SL, Green SM, Michels HT, Keevil CW: Biocidal efficacy of copper alloys against pathogenic enterococci involves degradation of genomic and plasmid DNAs. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010, 76: 5390-5401.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Weaver L, Noyce JO, Michels HT, Keevil CW: Potential action of copper surfaces on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Appl Microbiol. 2010, 109: 2200-2205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Salgado CD, Sepkowitz KA, John JF, Cantey JR, Attaway HH, Freeman KD, Sharpe PA, Michels HT, Schmidt MG: Copper surfaces reduce the rate of healthcare-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013, 34: 479-486.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Schmidt MG, Attaway Iii HH, Fairey SE, Steed LL, Michels HT, Salgado CD: Copper continuously limits the concentration of bacteria resident on bed rails within the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013, 34: 530-533.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Breuing K, Eriksson E, Liu P, Miller DR: Healing of partial thickness porcine skin wounds in a liquid environment. J Surg Res. 1992, 52: 50-58.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Svensjo T, Pomahac B, Yao F, Slama J, Eriksson E: Accelerated healing of full-thickness skin wounds in a wet environment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000, 106: 602-612. discussion 613–604PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Velander P, Theopold C, Bleiziffer O, Bergmann J, Svensson H, Feng Y, Eriksson E: Cell suspensions of autologous keratinocytes or autologous fibroblasts accelerate the healing of full thickness skin wounds in a diabetic porcine wound healing model. J Surg Res. 2009, 157: 14-20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Eriksson E, Perez N, Slama J, Page CP, Andree C, Maguire JH: Treatment of chronic, nonhealing abdominal wound in a liquid environment. Ann Plast Surg. 1996, 36: 80-83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Sherry L, Murphy BSJX MD, Kenneth D, Kochanek MA: Deaths: Final Data for 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
  105. Levit KSE, Ryank K, Elixhauser A: HCUP Facts and Figures, 2006: Statistics on Hospital-Based Care in the United States. 2008, HCUP Facts and Figures, Rockville (MD)Google Scholar
  106. Anderson DJ, Kirkland KB, Kaye KS, Thacker PA, Kanafani ZA, Auten G, Sexton DJ: Underresourced hospital infection control and prevention programs: penny wise, pound foolish?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007, 28: 767-773.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, Hebert L, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt H: The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991, 324: 377-384.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Vegas AA, Jodra VM, Garcia ML: Nosocomial infection in surgery wards: a controlled study of increased duration of hospital stays and direct cost of hospitalization. Eur J Epidemiol. 1993, 9: 504-510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ: The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999, 20: 725-730.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Whitehouse JD, Friedman ND, Kirkland KB, Richardson WJ, Sexton DJ: The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002, 23: 183-189.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Umscheid CA, Mitchell MD, Doshi JA, Agarwal R, Williams K, Brennan PJ: Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011, 32: 101-114.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Bratzler DW, Hunt DR: The surgical infection prevention and surgical care improvement projects: national initiatives to improve outcomes for patients having surgery. Clin Infect Dis. 2006, 43: 322-330.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Dellinger EP, Hausmann SM, Bratzler DW, Johnson RM, Daniel DM, Bunt KM, Baumgardner GA, Sugarman JR: Hospitals collaborate to decrease surgical site infections. Am J Surg. 2005, 190: 9-15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. Stulberg JJ, Delaney CP, Neuhauser DV, Aron DC, Fu P, Koroukian SM: Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and the association with postoperative infections. JAMA. 2010, 303: 2479-2485.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Alexander JW, Solomkin JS, Edwards MJ: Updated recommendations for control of surgical site infections. Ann Surg. 2011, 253: 1082-1093.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Thompson KM, Oldenburg WA, Deschamps C, Rupp WC, Smith CD: Chasing zero: the drive to eliminate surgical site infections. Ann Surg. 2011, 254: 430-436. discussion 436–437PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Tsai and Caterson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement