ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2021
Is sterile exposure in perianal procedures necessary? A single-institution experience and results from a national survey.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) are the most common postoperative complications. To minimize the risk of SSI, there is a strict asepsis policy in the operating theatre. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk and cost-saving benefit of performing perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting.
methodsAll patients who had perianal surgery at our institution between January 2014 and December 2017 in a sterile (S) or non-sterile (NS) setting for an infectious or non-infectious cause were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day SSI rate. The secondary outcome was the reintervention rate. A questionnaire was sent to surgeons in the Netherlands to assess current policy with regard to asepsis in perianal procedures. Finally, a cost analysis was performed.
resultsIn total, 376 patients were included. The rate of SSI in infectious procedures was 13% (S) versus 14% (NS, p = 0.853) and 5.1% (S) versus 0.9% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.071). Reintervention rates in infectious procedures were 3.4% (S) versus 8.6% (NS, p = 0.187) and 1.3% (S) versus 0.0% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.227). The questionnaire revealed that most surgeons perform perianal surgery in a sterile setting although they did not consider this useful. The potential national cost-saving benefit of a non-sterile setting is €124.61 per patient.
conclusionsThis study suggests that it is safe to perform perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting with regard to the SSI and reintervention rate. Adjustment of the current practice will contribute to a reduction in healthcare expenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33665747What 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.