↓ Skip to main content

Topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery for the prevention of surgical wound infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Techniques in Coloproctology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery for the prevention of surgical wound infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10151-018-1814-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. L. Nelson, A. Kravets, R. Khateeb, M. Raza, M. Siddiqui, I. Taha, A. Tummala, R. Epple, S. Huang, M. Wen

Abstract

Among the techniques investigated to reduce the risk of surgical wound infection or surgical space infection (SSI) in patients having colorectal surgery are topical application of antimicrobials (antibiotics and antiseptics) to the open wound or immediately after closure. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on those treatments, with the exception of antibiotic ointments applied to closed skin, which are adequately assessed elsewhere, and a meta-analysis. Only randomized trials of patients having only colorectal surgery were included in this review. Studies were sought in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.gov, and the World Health Organization Internet clinical trials register portal. In addition, reference lists of included studies and other published reviews were screened. Meta-analysis was performed for all included studies and subgroup analyses done for each individual intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for each included study, paying particular attention to the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis used in each study. Sensitivity analyses were done to investigate heterogeneity of the analyses, excluding those studies with a significant risk of bias issues. Absolute risk reduction (RR) was calculated. The overall quality of the evidence for each individual intervention was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and was classified as high, moderate, low or very low. A total of 30 studies are included in this review with 5511 patients, 665 of whom had SSI. The interventions included: 10 studies of gentamicin impregnated sponge or beads wound inlays, 4 studies of chlorhexidine impregnated suture, 11 studies of direct wound lavage or powder application or injection of antibiotics before closure, 4 studies of ionized silver dressing applied to the closed skin, and 1 study of vitamin E oil applied to the open wound. All but one study used preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in addition to topical procedures, although, in some studies, the systemic antibiotic prophylaxis was not the same between groups or varied significantly from the recommended guidelines. Use of gentamycin sponge did not decrease SSI (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.16; low-quality evidence) even after including only the studies of abdominal wounds (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30; low-quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias decreased the heterogeneity and increased the effect of the prophylaxis for all wounds (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.33-0.78; low-quality evidence) and for abdominal wounds only (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72; moderate-quality evidence). Chlorhexidine impregnated suture showed no effect on SSI (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.10; low-quality evidence) and an increased efficacy after sensitivity analysis (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22-0.79; low-quality evidence). Antibiotic lavage showed a significant decrease in SSI (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.79; low-quality evidence) which increased after sensitivity analysis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.72; moderate-quality evidence). Application of silver dressing to the closed wound resulted in a decrease of SSI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85; moderate-quality evidence). The one study of topical vitamin E oil applied to the open wound showed a significant risk reduction (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.98; low-quality evidence). Each of these interventions appears to be effective in decreasing SSI, but the number of studies for each is small and the quality of evidence is very low to moderate. Within the various outcomes of GRADE assessment, even a moderate classification suggests that further studies may well have very different results.. No randomized trials exist of combinations of two or more of the above interventions to see if there is a combined effect. Future studies should make sure that the antibiotic used preoperatively is uniform within a study and is consistent with the current guidelines. Deviation from this leads to a significant heterogeneity and risk of bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,789,771
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#161
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,935
of 301,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.