Does wound irrigation with clorhexidine gluconate reduce the surgical site infection rate in closure of temporary loop ileostomy? A prospective clinical study
MetadataShow full item record
CitationGöztok, M., Terzi, M. C., Egeli, T., Arslan, N. Ç. ve Canda, A. E. (2018). Does wound irrigation with clorhexidine gluconate reduce the surgical site infection rate in closure of temporary loop ileostomy? A prospective clinical study. Surgical Infections, 19(6), 634-639. https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/sur.2018.061
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of irrigating the surgical site with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) on surgical site infection (SSI) in temporary loop ileostomy closure. Methods: In this observational cohort, patients who underwent diverting loop ileostomy and elective ileostomy closure for any reason between September 2014 and July 2016 were enrolled. Irrigation of the surgical site with 0.05% CHG or saline were compared regarding post-operative incision complications. Infection risk was estimated by the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System (NNIS) and Study of the Effect of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) scores. Post-operative follow-up was performed by a surgeon blinded to the treatment. Diagnosis of SSI was recorded according to the Guidelines for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Wound healing was evaluated by the Additional treatment, Serous discharge, Erythema, Purulent exudate, Separation of the deep tissues, Isolation of bacteria, and the duration of inpatient Stay (ASEPSIS) score. Results: There were 122 patients meeting the inclusion criteria: 60 in the saline (control) and 62 in the CHG (study) group. The mean age was 56.5 +/- 13.5 (standard deviation [SD]); 74 patients were male. The groups were similar regarding age, sex, indication for ileostomy, neoadjuvant therapies, and SENIC and ASEPSIS scores. The overall SSI rate was 18%: 19 patients (31.6%) in the control group and 3 (4.8%) patients in the study group (p <0.001). The mean ASEPSIS score was higher in the control group (12.8 +/- 17.7) than in the study group (3.7 +/- 7.8) (p <0.001). Patients in the control group had significantly higher rates of seroma (13.3% vs 1.6%; p = 0.014) and incision dehiscence (31.6% and 4.8%; p = 0.001). Time to healing was 9.9 +/- 5.1 days in the control group and 7.3 +/- 5.3 days in the study group (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Irrigation of the incision with 0.05% CHG reduces the SSI rate compared with saline irrigation. There is a need for randomized and wider trials to clarify the effect and standards of incision irrigation.