Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:57:42.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the Risk of Surgical Site Infection After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Open Cholecystectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Fernando M. Biscione ,
Renato C. Couto ,
Tânia M. Pedrosa  and
Mozar C. Neto
Fernando M. Biscione*
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Postgraduate Course, Medicine High School, Minas Gerais Federal University, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Renato C. Couto
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Postgraduate Course, Medicine High School, Minas Gerais Federal University, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Tânia M. Pedrosa
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Postgraduate Course, Medicine High School, Minas Gerais Federal University, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Mozar C. Neto
Affiliation:
Mater Dei Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
190 Alfredo Balena Avenue, Suite 7003, Santa Efigenia, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil 31.130-100 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We assessed the independent contributions of the surgical approach and other variables of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS) surgical patient component to the surgical site infection risk after cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was associated with a lower overall risk of surgical site infection and a lower risk of incisional infection but not a reduced risk of organ-space infection, compared with open cholecystectomy. The contribution of most of the variables of the NNIS surgical patient component to the risk of surgical site infection depended on the depth of the infection.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 9 , September 2007 , pp. 1103 - 1106
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Williams, LF Jr Chapman, WC, Bonau, RA, McGee, EC Jr Boyd, RW, Jacobs, JK. Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy in a single center. Am J Surg 1993;165:459–465.Google Scholar
2. Richards, C, Edwards, J, Culver, D, Emori, TG, Tolson, J, Gaynes, R. Does using a laparoscopic approach to cholecystectomy decrease the risk of surgical site infection? National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Surg 2003;237:358–362.Google Scholar
3. Chuang, SC, Lee, KT, Chang, WT, et al. Risk factors for wound infection after cholecystectomy. J Formos Med Assoc 2004;103:607–612.Google Scholar
4. Zitser, YG, Simchen, F, Ferderber, N, Freund, HR. A trend for reduced 15-day wound infection and 6-months' mortality in laparoscopic relative to open cholecystectomy: the Israeli Study of Surgical Infections. Clin Perform Qual Health Care 1997;5:116–122.Google Scholar
5. Horan, TC, Emori, TG. Definitions of key terms used in the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:112–116.Google Scholar
6. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery. Treat Guidel Med Lett 2004;2:27–32.Google Scholar
7. 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.Google Scholar
8. Albert, A, Anderson, JA. On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates in logistic regression models. Biometrika 1984;71:1–10.Google Scholar
9. Boni, L, Benevento, A, Rovera, F, et al. Infective complications in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2006;7(suppl 2):S109–S111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Tang, R, Chen, HH, Wang, YL, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection of the colon and rectum: a single-center prospective study of 2,809 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2001;234:181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar