Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2015
Microbial sealants do not decrease surgical site infection for clean-contaminated colorectal procedures.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with incisional and organ/space surgical site infections in abdominal surgery patients.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Pooled it
- Cyanoacrylate microbial sealants for skin preparation prior to surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
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
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) are costly complications that may cause significant morbidity and increase the cost of care, particularly in colorectal surgery. Microbial sealants (MS) are a new class of wound barriers aimed at decreasing SSI; however, there is only evidence of benefit in clean class 1 procedures. Based on its success in class 1 procedures, we hypothesized that a microbial sealant could reduce the rate of SSI by half for clean-contaminated colorectal procedures (class 2).
methodsThis was a single institution, multihospital, prospective, randomized study approved by the institutional review board. The primary objective was to determine the rate of SSI when microbial sealant (InteguSeal© Kimberly-Clark) is used compared to control (no microbial sealant). Data collected included: open versus laparoscopy, age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes and morbidity [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class], hospital readmission, reoperation and wound dehiscence. Enrolled subjects received the same preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, operative skin preparation (Chloraprep), Surgical Care Improvement Project guidelines implementation), and postoperative care glycemic control for diabetics.
resultsA total of 100 subjects were recruited over 15 months (MS-50; no MS-50). The overall incidence of SSI was 12 %, 14 % (7/50) in the MS versus 10 % (5/50) in the no MS group (p = 0.545). SSI incidence with and without microbial sealant was not significantly different in either the open or the laparoscopic subgroup. Laparoscopy decreased absolute risk of SSI by 16 %. Secondary data (age, BMI, diabetes, ASA) and tertiary data (readmission, reoperation, wound dehiscence) were positively correlated with SSI.
conclusionsMicrobial sealant as employed in this study did not appear to offer any benefit in a class 2 (clean contaminated) operative procedure when perioperative care is standardized. The relative benefit of laparoscopy was also confirmed but unaffected by use of the microbial sealant.
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.