Self-Reported Diagnosis and Management of Surgical Site Infection Highlights Lack of Objective Measures and Treatment Guidance.

Background: There is little guidance regarding empiric therapy for superficial surgical site infections (SSIs). Management of incisions with signs of SSI lacks consensus and management is variable among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society was surveyed regarding management of SSIs. Cases were provided with varying wound descriptions, initial wound class (WC), post-operative day, and presence of a prosthesis. Responses were in multiple-choice format; statistics: χ2; α = 0.05. Results: Seventy-eight members responded. For appearance scenarios, respondents believed that both mild erythema (55%) and clear drainage (64%) could be observed, whereas substantial (>3 cm) erythema or purulence should be treated with complete (22% and 50%) or partial (55% and 40%) opening of the incision. Degree of erythema did not influence administration of antibiotic agents, but purulence was more likely than clear drainage to be treated with antibiotics (38% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). There were no differences based on WC, except that clean cases were more likely than higher WC scenarios to be treated with gram-positive coverage alone (WC 1 [26%] vs. 2 [10%] vs. 3 [13%] vs. 4 [4%]; p < 0.001). Post-operative day (POD) three appeared to be an inflection point for more aggressive treatment of suspected incisional SSI, with fewer (POD 0 [86%] vs. POD day 3 [54%]; p < 0.001) reporting observation. Respondents were more likely to obtain imaging, start broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and return to the operating room for purulence in the presence of a mesh. Conclusions: Presented with escalating possibility of SSI, respondents reported lower rates of observation, increased use of antibiotic agents, and increased surgical drainage. Many scenarios lack consensus regarding appropriate therapy. The complete elimination of SSIs is unlikely to be accomplished soon, and this study provides a framework for understanding how surgeons approach SSIs, and potential areas for further research or pragmatic guidance.

[1]  J. Torkington,et al.  Diagnosis of colorectal and emergency surgical site infections in the era of enhanced recovery: an all‐Wales prospective study , 2021, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[2]  Grace Pyon,et al.  An analysis of 3,954 cases to determine surgical wound classification accuracy: Does your institution need a monday morning quarterback? , 2020, American journal of surgery.

[3]  N. Demartines,et al.  Timing, diagnosis, and treatment of surgical site infections after colonic surgery: prospective surveillance of 1263 patients. , 2018, The Journal of hospital infection.

[4]  K. Itani,et al.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017 , 2017, JAMA surgery.

[5]  C. Gingert,et al.  Clinical relevance and effect of surgical wound classification in appendicitis: Retrospective evaluation of wound classification discrepancies between surgeons, Swissnoso-trained infection control nurse, and histology as well as surgical site infection rates by wound class. , 2017, The Journal of surgical research.

[6]  Florence E. Turrentine,et al.  Can we define surgical site infection accurately in colorectal surgery? , 2014, Surgical infections.

[7]  E. P. Dellinger,et al.  Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update , 2014, Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology.

[8]  Carol A. Keohane,et al.  Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[9]  L. Kao,et al.  Quality check of a quality measure: surgical wound classification discrepancies impact risk-stratified surgical site infection rates in pediatric appendicitis. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[10]  K. Bilimoria,et al.  The Relationship between Preoperative Wound Classification and Postoperative Infection: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of 15,289 Patients , 2013, Archives of plastic surgery.

[11]  D. Cardo,et al.  Estimating Health Care-Associated Infections and Deaths in U.S. Hospitals, 2002 , 2007, Public health reports.

[12]  W E Wilkinson,et al.  The Impact of Surgical-Site Infections in the 1990s: Attributable Mortality, Excess Length of Hospitalization, And Extra Costs , 1999, Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology.

[13]  W J Martone,et al.  Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. , 1991, The American journal of medicine.

[14]  James T. Lee,et al.  Continuous, 10-year wound infection surveillance. Results, advantages, and unanswered questions. , 1990, Archives of surgery.

[15]  J. Garner CDC Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Wound Infections, 1985 , 1986, Infection Control.

[16]  T. Treasure,et al.  A SCORING METHOD (ASEPSIS) FOR POSTOPERATIVE WOUND INFECTIONS FOR USE IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS , 1986, The Lancet.

[17]  R. Haley,et al.  The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

[18]  E. P. Dellinger,et al.  American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[19]  G. Oster,et al.  Clinical and economic consequences of post-operative infections following major elective surgery in U.S. hospitals. , 2014, Surgical infections.