ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2011
Back to basics--cutting the cord on umbilical infections.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of surgical site infection rates between transumbilical and periumbilical incisions in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Transumbilical laparoscopy for pneumoperitoneum establishment: a comprehensive multicentre evaluation affirming safety, feasibility, and a range of clinical benefits.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Transumbilical abdominal incision for laparoscopic colorectal surgery does not increase the risk of postoperative surgical site infection.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical site infections (SSIs) are a significant cause of postoperative morbidity with laparoscopic surgery associated with lower SSI rates. However, a departmental change in our unit to increased laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in increased wound infection rates at umbilical specimen extraction sites, the cause of which we attempted to elucidate. SUBJECTS AND
methodsProspectively collected data over an 18-month period (April 2008 to September 2009) for laparoscopic colorectal operations in a busy teaching hospital were retrospectively analysed, focusing on operation performed, whether pre-operative skin cleansing was employed, nature of specimen extraction excision, and rate of umbilical wound infection. Comparison was made with open colorectal procedures performed in the preceding year.
resultsIn total, 275 laparoscopic colorectal operations were performed. Over the first 8 months there was a significant increase in infection rates when compared with open procedures over a similar time period (23.5% vs 8.0%; P = 0.0001). Changing practice to use pre-operative skin cleansing and an incision that skirted around, as opposed to traversing, the umbilicus reduced umbilical infection rates significantly from 23.5% to 11.6% (P = 0.01). Patients undergoing right hemicolectomy benefitted more (reduction of 30.0% to 6.9%; P = 0.04) than those undergoing anterior resection (26.8% vs 15.6%, P = 0.13).
conclusionsUmbilical incisions, when extended for specimen extraction, are particularly prone to infection following colorectal surgery but rates can be reduced by simple measures such as pre-operative umbilical cleansing and avoidance of the umbilicus in the incision, without the need for drastic and costly changes in technique or antibiotic prophylaxis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.