实施感染控制检查表可能无法有效降低脊柱手术中手术部位感染的发生率。

Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-14 DOI:10.1177/17571774221127620
Gizem Kavak, Cihan Kırçıl, Hatice Pelgur, Eylem Topçu, Evrim Yanmaz Erdoğmuş, Tuba Ayabakan, Emre R Acaroglu
{"title":"实施感染控制检查表可能无法有效降低脊柱手术中手术部位感染的发生率。","authors":"Gizem Kavak,&nbsp;Cihan Kırçıl,&nbsp;Hatice Pelgur,&nbsp;Eylem Topçu,&nbsp;Evrim Yanmaz Erdoğmuş,&nbsp;Tuba Ayabakan,&nbsp;Emre R Acaroglu","doi":"10.1177/17571774221127620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented spine surgery remains as a major complication with increased morbidity. Although implementation of surgical safety checklists has been reported to lower the rates of SSI, reproducibility of these remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The specific aim of this study was to explore the results of implementation of a SSI control protocol in regard to its efficacy in decreasing the rate of SSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 140 instrumented spinal surgery cases between 2018 and 2021 were divided into two groups as Group 1 (checklist implemented) and Group 2 (control) and these were compared regarding SSI rates, patient rand surgery related factors, laboratory findings and infecting microorganisms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten SSIs were encountered in Group 1 (20.8%), whereas only nine in Group 2 (9.8%). Although not statistically significant (<i>p</i> > .05), these results highly favor the non-checklist implemented group regarding the development of SSI. A definitive infective microorganism could be identified in five out of 10 SSI in Group 1 and 6 out of nine in Group 2. Whereas only three out of 11 (27.3%) involved Gr (+) agents, rest of eight out of 11 (72.7%) involved Gr (-) agents.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A failure in decreasing the SSI rate through the implementation of a SSI prevention checklist may be due to several factors pertaining to the study design, patient characteristics and the Gr (-) dominance in SSIs in our center. Nevertheless, this suggests that checklist implementation to prevent SSI in instrumented spine surgery may not be effective in all contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9583439/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing an infection control checklist May not be effective in reducing the incidence of surgical site infections in spinal surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Gizem Kavak,&nbsp;Cihan Kırçıl,&nbsp;Hatice Pelgur,&nbsp;Eylem Topçu,&nbsp;Evrim Yanmaz Erdoğmuş,&nbsp;Tuba Ayabakan,&nbsp;Emre R Acaroglu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17571774221127620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented spine surgery remains as a major complication with increased morbidity. Although implementation of surgical safety checklists has been reported to lower the rates of SSI, reproducibility of these remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The specific aim of this study was to explore the results of implementation of a SSI control protocol in regard to its efficacy in decreasing the rate of SSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 140 instrumented spinal surgery cases between 2018 and 2021 were divided into two groups as Group 1 (checklist implemented) and Group 2 (control) and these were compared regarding SSI rates, patient rand surgery related factors, laboratory findings and infecting microorganisms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten SSIs were encountered in Group 1 (20.8%), whereas only nine in Group 2 (9.8%). Although not statistically significant (<i>p</i> > .05), these results highly favor the non-checklist implemented group regarding the development of SSI. A definitive infective microorganism could be identified in five out of 10 SSI in Group 1 and 6 out of nine in Group 2. Whereas only three out of 11 (27.3%) involved Gr (+) agents, rest of eight out of 11 (72.7%) involved Gr (-) agents.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A failure in decreasing the SSI rate through the implementation of a SSI prevention checklist may be due to several factors pertaining to the study design, patient characteristics and the Gr (-) dominance in SSIs in our center. Nevertheless, this suggests that checklist implementation to prevent SSI in instrumented spine surgery may not be effective in all contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9583439/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17571774221127620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17571774221127620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:器械脊柱手术中的手术部位感染(SSI)仍然是发病率增加的主要并发症。尽管有报道称,实施手术安全检查表可以降低SSI的发生率,但其再现性仍不清楚。目的:本研究的具体目的是探讨SSI控制方案在降低SSI发生率方面的效果,患者rand手术相关因素、实验室检查结果和感染微生物。结果:第1组有10例SSI(20.8%),而第2组只有9例(9.8%)。尽管没有统计学意义(p>0.05),但这些结果在SSI的发展方面高度支持未执行检查表的组。在第1组的10个SSI中有5个和第2组的9个中有6个可以鉴定出明确的感染微生物。11人中只有3人(27.3%)涉及Gr(+)制剂,其余8人(72.7%)涉及Gr-制剂。讨论:通过实施SSI预防检查表来降低SSI率的失败可能是由于与研究设计、患者特征和我们中心SSI中Gr(-)占主导地位有关的几个因素。然而,这表明,在器械脊柱手术中预防SSI的检查表实施可能并非在所有情况下都有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Implementing an infection control checklist May not be effective in reducing the incidence of surgical site infections in spinal surgery.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented spine surgery remains as a major complication with increased morbidity. Although implementation of surgical safety checklists has been reported to lower the rates of SSI, reproducibility of these remain unclear.

Objective: The specific aim of this study was to explore the results of implementation of a SSI control protocol in regard to its efficacy in decreasing the rate of SSI.

Methods: A total of 140 instrumented spinal surgery cases between 2018 and 2021 were divided into two groups as Group 1 (checklist implemented) and Group 2 (control) and these were compared regarding SSI rates, patient rand surgery related factors, laboratory findings and infecting microorganisms.

Results: Ten SSIs were encountered in Group 1 (20.8%), whereas only nine in Group 2 (9.8%). Although not statistically significant (p > .05), these results highly favor the non-checklist implemented group regarding the development of SSI. A definitive infective microorganism could be identified in five out of 10 SSI in Group 1 and 6 out of nine in Group 2. Whereas only three out of 11 (27.3%) involved Gr (+) agents, rest of eight out of 11 (72.7%) involved Gr (-) agents.

Discussion: A failure in decreasing the SSI rate through the implementation of a SSI prevention checklist may be due to several factors pertaining to the study design, patient characteristics and the Gr (-) dominance in SSIs in our center. Nevertheless, this suggests that checklist implementation to prevent SSI in instrumented spine surgery may not be effective in all contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信