Observational studyPloS one2019
Microbial contamination and tissue procurement location: A conventional operating room is not mandatory. An observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioburden of postmortem bone tissues with a procurement time exceeding 36 h.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Article
- A local, non-commercial tissue bank connected to an organ donor program can produce musculoskeletal allografts of uniform quality at very low costs - ten years' experience.Cell and tissue banking · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard operating rooms (SOR) are assumed to be the best place to prevent microbial contamination when performing tissue procurement. However, mobilizing an operating room is time and cost consuming if no organ retrieval is performed. In such case, non-operating dedicated rooms (NODR) are usually recommended by European guidelines for tissue harvesting. Performing the tissue retrieval in the Intensive care unit (ICU) when possible might be considered as it allows a faster and simpler procedure.
objectiveOur primary objective was to study the relationship between the risk of microbial contamination and the location (ICU, SOR or NODR) of the tissue retrieval in heart-beating and non-heart-beating deceased donors. MATERIALS AND
methodWe retrospectively reviewed all deceased donors' files of the local tissue banks of Montpellier and Marseille from January 2007 to December 2014. The primary endpoint was the microbial contamination of the grafts. We built a multivariate regression model and used a GEE (generalized estimating equations) allowing us to take into account the clustered structure of our data.
results2535 cases were analyzed involving 1027 donors. The retrieval took place for 1189 in a SOR, for 996 in a hospital mortuary (NODR) and for 350 in an ICU. 285 (11%) microbial contaminations were revealed. The multivariate analysis found that the location in a hospital mortuary was associated with a lower risk of contamination (OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.2-0.91], p = 0.03). A procurement performed in the ICU was not associated with a significant increased risk (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.26-1.48], p = 0.4).
conclusionAccording to our results, performing tissue procurement in dedicated non-sterile rooms could decrease the rate of allograft tissue contamination. This study also suggests that in daily clinical practice, transferring patients from ICU to SOR for tissue procurement could be avoided as it does not lead to less microbial contamination.
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.