Trial reportBJS open2024
Comparison of two bundles for reducing surgical site infection in colorectal surgery: multicentre cohort study.
Trial report in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Oral antibiotic prophylaxis induces changes in the microbiology of surgical site infection after colorectal surgery. A matched comparative study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- An evaluation study of direct economic losses from surgical site infections in adults: structural equation modeling.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is controversy regarding the maximum number of elements that can be included in a surgical site infection prevention bundle. In addition, it is unclear whether a bundle of this type can be implemented at a multicentre level.
methodsA pragmatic, multicentre cohort study was designed to analyse surgical site infection rates in elective colorectal surgery after the sequential implementation of two preventive bundle protocols. Secondary outcomes were to determine compliance with individual measures and to establish their effectiveness, duration of stay, microbiology and 30-day mortality rate.
resultsA total of 32 205 patients were included. A 50% reduction in surgical site infection was achieved after the implementation of two sequential sets of bundles: from 18.16% in the Baseline group to 10.03% with Bundle-1 and 8.19% with Bundle-2. Bundle-2 reduced superficial-surgical site infection (OR 0.74 (95% c.i. 0.58 to 0.95); P = 0.018) and deep-surgical site infection (OR 0.66 (95% c.i. 0.46 to 0.93); P = 0.018) but not organ/space-surgical site infection (OR 0.88 (95% c.i. 0.74 to 1.06); P = 0.172). Compliance increased after the addition of four measures to Bundle-2. In the multivariable analysis, for organ/space-surgical site infection, laparoscopy, oral antibiotic prophylaxis and mechanical bowel preparation were protective factors in colonic procedures, while no protective factors were found in rectal surgery. Duration of stay fell significantly over time, from 7 in the Baseline group to 6 and 5 days for Bundle-1 and Bundle-2 respectively (P < 0.001). The mortality rate fell from 1.4% in the Baseline group to 0.59% and 0.6% for Bundle-1 and Bundle-2 respectively (P < 0.001). There was an increase in Gram-positive bacteria and yeast isolation, and reduction in Gram-negative bacteria and anaerobes in organ/space-surgical site infection.
conclusionsThe addition of measures to create a final 10-measure protocol had a cumulative protective effect on reducing surgical site infection. However, organ/space-surgical site infection did not benefit from the addition. No protective measures were found for organ/space-surgical site infection in rectal surgery. Compliance with preventive measures increased from Bundle-1 to Bundle-2.
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.