Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:07:35.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Techniques Known to Prevent Post-Operative Wound Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Ronald Lee Nichols
Ronald Lee Nichols*
Affiliation:
Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
*
Department of Surgery, Tulane University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most important factors in controlling postsurgical sepsis are appropriate surgical judgment and technique. Efficacious prophylactic antibiotics, when indicated, also significantly reduce the postoperative infection rate. Among the other techniques often heralded as important adjunctive measures, only duration of preoperative hospitalization, preoperative bathing, use of electrocautery, preoperative hair removal, use of prophylactic drains, and duration of operation are of proven significance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 34 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1982

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.Burke, JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961; 50:161–168.Google Scholar
2.Polk, HC Jr, Lopez-Mayor, JF. Postoperative wound infection. A prospective study of determinant factors and prevention. Surgery 1969; 66:97–102.Google Scholar
3.Stone, HH, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 1976; 184:443–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Shapiro, MB, et al. Use of antimicrobial drugs in general hospitals. Patterns of prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1979; 301:351–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Nichols, RL, et al. Efficacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation of the bowel. Ann Surg 1972; 176:227–232.Google Scholar
6.Alexander, JW, Alexander, NS. The influence of route of administration on wound fluid concentration of prophylactic antibiotics. J Trauma 1976; 16:488–495.Google Scholar
7.Nichols, RL, et al. Effect of preoperative neomycin-erythromycin intestinal preparation on the incidence of infectious complications following colon surgery. Ann Surg 1973; 178:453–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Nichols, RL. Intraabdominal sepsis: Characterization and treatment. J Infec Dis 1977; 135:54–57.Google Scholar
9.Nichols, RL, Condon, RE. Role of the Endogenous Gastrointestinal Microflora in Postoperative Wound Sepsis. In: Nyhus, LH, ed Surgery Annual. New York: ACC, 1975; pp 279–293.Google Scholar
10.Cruse, PJE, Foord, R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973; 107:106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Northey, D, et al. Microbial surveillance in a surgical intensive care unit. Surg Gynec Obstet 1974; 139:321–326.Google Scholar
12.Kundsin, RB, Walter, CW. The surgical scrub—A practical consideration. Arch Surg 1973; 107:75–78.Google Scholar
13.White, JJ, Duncan, A. The comparative effectiveness of iodophor and hexachlorophene surgical scrub solutions. Surgery 1972; 135:890–894.Google Scholar
14.Graves, DL, et al. Septisol antiseptic foam for hands of operation room personnel: An effective antibacterial agent. Surgery 1973; 73:360–364.Google Scholar
15.Dineen, P. An evaluation of the duration of surgical scrub. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969; 129:1181–1185.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Galle, PC, Homesley, HD, Rhyne, AL. Reassessment of the surgical scrub. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978; 147:215–219.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Gad, P. Glove damage as a route of wound infection. Dan Med Bul 1965; 12:1–6.Google Scholar
18.Seropian, R, Reynolds, BM. Wound infections after preoperative depilatory versus razor preparation. Am J Surg 1971; 121:251–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Balthazar, ER, Colt, J, Nichols, RL. Preoperative hair removal: A random, prospective study. Submitted to South Med J.Google Scholar
20.Bethune, DW, et al. Dispersal of Staphylococcus aureus by patients and surgical staff. Lancet 1965; 1:480–487.Google Scholar
21.Laufman, H. Airflow effects in surgery: Perspective of an era. Arch Surg 1979; 114:826–832.Google Scholar
22.Nora, PF, Vanecko, RM, Bransfield, JJ. Prophylactic abdominal drains. Arch Surg 1972; 105:173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Cerise, EJ, Pierce, WA, Diamond, DL. Abdominal drains: Their role as a source of infection following splenectomy. Ann Surg 1970; 171:764–780.Google Scholar
24.Magee, C, et al. Potentiation of wound infection by surgical drains. Am J Surg 1976; 131:547–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Alexander, JW, Korelitz, J, Alexander, NS. Prevention of wound infections: A case for closed suction drainage to remove fluids deficient in opsonic proteins. Am J Surg 1976; 132:59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed