Objective:
This trial evaluated the superiority of intraoperative wound irrigation (IOWI) with aqueous povidone-iodine (PVP-I) compared with that with saline for reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI).
Background:
IOWI with aqueous PVP-I is recommended for the prevention of SSI by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although the evidence level is low.
Methods:
This single institute in Japan, prospective, randomized, blinded-endpoint trial was conducted to assess the superiority of IOWI with aqueous PVP-I in comparison with IOWI with saline for reducing the incidence of SSI in clean-contaminated wounds after gastroenterological surgery. Patients 20 years or older were assessed for eligibility, and the eligible participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated block randomization. In the study group, IOWI was performed for 1 minute with 40 mL of aqueous 10% PVP-I before skin closure. In the control group, the procedure was performed with 100 mL of saline. Participants, assessors, and analysts were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional SSI in the intention-to-treat set.
Results:
Between June 2019 and March 2022, 941 patients were randomized to the study group (473 patients) or the control group (468 patients). The incidence of incisional SSI was 7.6% in the study group and 5.1% in the control group (risk difference 0.025, 95% CI -0.006 to 0.056; risk ratio 1.484, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.448; P=0.154).
Conclusion:
The current recommendation of IOWI with aqueous PVP-I should be reconsidered.
IntroductionSurgery for patients taking antithrombotic drugs for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, including anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs, is increasing because of the aging society. In patients with moderate to high risk for cardiovascular events, receiving antiplatelet therapy, and requiring noncardiac surgery continuing antiplatelet drugs perioperatively is recommended. To date, there have been limited reports on the risk of secondary bleeding after proctological surgery in patients who are administered antithrombotic drugs. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and severity of secondary bleeding after proctological surgery for patients with or without antithrombotic therapy.
MethodsWe retrospectively identified 113 patients who underwent proctological surgery in our hospital from March 2009 to February 2019. In general, antiplatelet drugs were continued and anticoagulant drugs were either substituted or withdrawn prior to surgery. The severity of secondary bleeding was classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
ResultsEighteen patients underwent antithrombotic therapy (A group) and 95 patients did not undergo antithrombotic therapy (N group). Secondary bleeding was observed in nine patients (8.0%) and patients in the A group exhibited a significantly higher rate of secondary bleeding than those in the N group (39% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.01). The median interval from surgery to the onset of secondary bleeding was five days (range: 0-11). The severity of bleeding was the highest in patients administered direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and was the lowest in those administered aspirin. There was no mortality or cardiovascular event.
ConclusionAntithrombotic therapy carries a high risk of secondary bleeding after proctological surgery. Delaying the postoperative resumption of anticoagulants is considered while balancing the risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications against secondary bleeding.
Highlights
An anterior approach to inguinal hernia repair using laparoscopy is demonstrated.
This approach provides added advantage to recurrent inguinal hernia repair.
This approach can prevent nerve damage by reducing surgical dissection.
Laparoscopic confirmation assures complete coverage of all hernia defects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.