Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T08:28:56.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Challenge of Postoperative Infections Does the Surgeon Make a Difference?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

René G. Holzheimer ,
Werner Haupt ,
Arnulf Thiede  and
Andreas Schwarzkopf
René G. Holzheimer*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Würzburg University, Germany
Werner Haupt
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Erlangen University, Germany
Arnulf Thiede
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Würzburg University, Germany
Andreas Schwarzkopf
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Würzburg University, Germany
*
Department of Surgery, Würzburg University, Josef-Schneider-Straße 2, D-97080 Würzburg, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Postoperative infections remain a challenge in many surgical procedures despite improved surgical technique and powerful antibiotics. The number of sepsis cases has tripled from 1979 to 1992 due to increased invasive procedures in older and immune-suppressed patients. Increasingly, in recent years, outbreaks of resistant pathogens have been published, provoking the question of how postoperative infections and resistant pathogens should be dealt with.

Wound classification and risk stratification were developed to identify patients at risk for postoperative infection. However, other important intrinsic factors of the patient were not included, and further attempts have been made to increase sensitivity and specificity (eg, Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control project, National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System score); the American Society of Anesthesiologists preoperative assessment score and the operation duration for specific procedures were introduced into the system as risk stratifiers.

Advances in immunology have identified new ways in which the surgeon can moderate the immune response (eg, hemorrhage and blood transfusion-induced immune suppression). The increased rate of resistance in enterococci and staphylococci has refocused attention on infection control in surgery. However, there are recent reports from both sides of the Atlantic indicating that guidelines for infection control and antibiotic policy have not become reflected in standard procedures in many hospitals.

New antibiotics may be developed, but resistance soon may follow. Sound techniques in surgery, with careful infection control and antibiotic policies, may be the only strategy to prevent further increases in resistance of pathogens in postoperative infections.

Type
Review
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , June 1997 , pp. 449 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stone, R. Search for sepsis drugs goes on despite past failures. Science 1994;264:365–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Green, JW, Wenzel, RP. Postoperative wound infection: a controlled study of the increased duration of hospital stay and direct cost of hospitalization. Ann Surg 1977;185:264–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Brewer, GE. Studies in aseptic technique, with a report of some recent observations at the Roosevelt Hospital. JAM.A 1915;64:1369–1372.Google Scholar
4. Ehrenkranz, NJ. Surgical wound infection occurrence in clean operations risk stratification for interhospital comparisons. Am J Med 1981;70:909–914.Google Scholar
5. Simchen, E, Shapiro, M, Michel, J, et al. Multivariate analysis of determinants of postoperative wound infection: a possible basis for intervention. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:678–682.Google Scholar
6. Nichols, RL, Smith, JW, Klein, DB, et al. Risk of infection after penetrating abdominal trauma. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1065–1070.Google Scholar
7. Cruse, PJE, Foord, R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973;107:206–210.Google Scholar
8. Scheckler, WE. Surgeon-specific wound infection rates—a potential dangerous and misleading strategy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:145–146.Google Scholar
9. Olson, MM, Lee, JT. Continuous, 10-year wound infection surveillance results, advantages, and unanswered questions. Arch Surg 1990;125:794–803.Google Scholar
10. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.Google Scholar
11. Haley, RW, Morgan, WM, Culver, DH, et al. Update from the SENIC project hospital infection control: recent progress and opportunities under prospective payment. Am J Infect Control 1985;13:97–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Culver, DH, Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3b):152–157.Google Scholar
13. Keats, AS. The ASA classifications of the physical status—a recapitulation. Anesthesiology 1978;49:233–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hooton, TM, Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, Morgan, WM, Carroll, RJ. The joint associations of multiple risk factors with the occurrence of nosocomial infection. Am J Med 1981;70:960–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Conklin, CM, Gray, RJ, Neilson, D, Wong, P, Tomita, DK, Matloff, JM. Determinants of wound infection incidence after isolated coronary artery bypass surgery in patients randomized to receive prophylactic cefuroxime or cefazolin. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;46:172–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Kaiser, AB, Herrington, IL, Jacobs, JK, Mulherin, JL, Roach, AC, Sawyers, JL. Cefoxitin versus erythromycin, neomycin, and cefazolin in colorectal operations. Ann Surg 1983;198:525–530.Google Scholar
17. Coppa, GF, Eng, K. Factors involved in antibiotic selection in elective colon and rectal surgery. Surgery 1988;104:853–858.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection: a simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:206–215.Google Scholar
19. Garibaldi, RA, Cushing, D, Lerer, T. Risk factors for postoperative infection. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3b):158S–163S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Thomson, PD, Smith, DJ. What is infection? Am J Surg 1995;167(suppl 1a):7S–11S.Google Scholar
21. Meakins, JL. Prophylactic antibiotics. In: Meakins, JL, ed. Surgical Infections—Diagnosis and Treatment. New York City, NY: Scientific American Medicine; 1994:139–149.Google Scholar
22. Cruse, PJE. Wound infections: epidemiology and clinical characteristics. In: Howard, RJ, Simmons, RL, eds. Surgical Infectious Diseases. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange; 1988:319–329.Google Scholar
23. Emmerson, M. Environmental factors influencing infection. In: Taylor, EW, ed. Infection in Surgical Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford Medical Publications; 1992:8–17.Google Scholar
24. Leaper, DJ. Surgical factors influencing infection. In: Taylor, EW, ed. Infection in Surgical Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford Medical Publications; 1992:18–27.Google Scholar
25. Gottrup, F. Measurements and evaluation of tissue perfusion in surgery. In: Leaper, DJ, Braniki, FJ, eds. Infection in Surgical Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1992:15–39.Google Scholar
26. Lau, WY, Fan, ST, Chu, KW. Influence of surgeon experience on postoperative sepsis. Am J Surg 1988;155:322–326.Google Scholar
27. Cuthbertson, AM, McLeish, AR, Penfold, JC, Ross, H. A comparison between single and double intravenous trimetin for prophylaxis of wound infection in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:151–155.Google Scholar
28. Misrhiki, SF, Law, DJW, Jeffrey, PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect 1990;16:223–230.Google Scholar
29. Browder, W, Smith, JW, Vivoda, LM, Nichols, RL. Nonperforative appendicitis: a continuing surgical dilemma. J Infect Dis 1989;159:1088–1094.Google Scholar
30. Christou, NV, Nohr, CS, Meakins, JL. Assessing operative site infection in surgical patients. Arch Surg 1987;122:165–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Cainzos, M, Alcalde, JA, Potel, J, Puente, JL. Anergy in patients with gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 1989;36:36–39.Google Scholar
32. Windsor, ACJ, Klava, AA, Somers, SS, Guillou, PJ, Reynolds, JV. Manipulation of local and systemic host defense in the prevention of perioperative sepsis. Br J Surg 1995;82:1460–1467.Google Scholar
33. Chaudry, ICH, Stephan, RN, Harkema, JM, Dean, RE. Immunological alterations following simple hemorrhage. In: Faist, E, Ninnemann, JL, Green, DR, eds. Immune Consequences of Trauma, Shock and Sepsis: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1989:363–373.Google Scholar
34. Ayala, A, Perin, MM, Chaudry, ICH. Increased susceptibility to sepsis following hemorrhage: defective Kupffer-cell mediated antigen presentation. Surgical Forum 1989;40:102–104.Google Scholar
35. Redan, JA, Rush, BF, Machiedo, GW, et al. Fate of bacteria absorbed from the gut during hemorrhagic shock. Surgical Forum 1989;40:91–93.Google Scholar
36. Baker, JW, Deitch, EA, Li, M, Berg, RD, Specian, RD. Hemorrhagic shock induces bacterial translocation from the gut. J Trauma 1988;28:896–906.Google Scholar
37. Sori, AJ, Rush, BF, Lysz, TW, Smith, S, Maciedo, GW. The gut as source of sepsis after hemorrhagic shock. Am J Surg 1988;155:187–192.Google Scholar
38. Rush, BF, Sori, AJ, Murphy, TF, Smith, S, Flanagan, JJ, Machiedo, GW. Endotoxemia and bacteremia during hemorrhagic shock. The link between trauma and sepsis? Ann Surg 1988;207:549–554.Google Scholar
39. Haley, RW, Aber, RC, Bennett, JV. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co; 1986:51–71.Google Scholar
40. Hughes, JM. Nosocomial infection surveillance in the United States: historical perspective. Infect Control 1987;8:450–453.Google Scholar
41. Kislak, JW, Eickhoff, TC, Finland, M. Hospital acquired infections and antibiotic usage in the Boston City Hospital, January 1964. N Engl J Med 1964;271:834–835.Google Scholar
42. Barrett, FF, Casey, JI, Finland, M. Infections and antibiotic use among patients at Boston City Hospital, February 1967. N Engl J Med 1968;278:5–9.Google Scholar
43. Scheckler, WE, Garner, JS, Kaiser, AB, et al. Prevalence of infections and antibiotic usage in eight community hospitals. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Nosocomial Infections; August 1970; Atlanta, GA; pp 299–305.Google Scholar
44. Stamm, WE, Martin, SM, Bennett, JV. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections due to gram-negative bacilli: aspects relevant to development and use of vaccines. J Infect Dis 1977;136:151S-160S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial infection surveillance, 1984. In: Centers for Disease Control Surveillance Summaries. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control 1986;35:17SS–29SS.Google Scholar
46. Haley, RW, White, JW, Culver, DH, et al. The financial incentive for hospitals to prevent nosocomial infections under the prospective payment system: an empirical determination from a nationally representative sample. JAMA 1987;257:1611–1614.Google Scholar
47. Haley, RW, Quade, D, Freeman, HE, et al. The SENIC project: study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC project). Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:472–485.Google Scholar
48. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205.Google Scholar
49. National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1960;160(suppl 2):1–132.Google Scholar
50. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, Morgan, WM, et al. Identifying patients at risk of surgical wound infection: a simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:206–215.Google Scholar
51. Condon, RE, Schulte, WJ, Malangoni, MA, et al. Effectiveness of a surgical wound surveillance program. Arch Surg 1983;118:303–307.Google Scholar
52. Olson, M, O'Connor, M, Schwartz, ML. Surgical wound infections: a 5-year prospective study of 20,193 wounds at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Ann Surg 1984;199:253–259.Google Scholar
53. Cruse, PJE, Foord, R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60:27–40.Google Scholar
54. Cruse, P. Wound infection surveillance. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3:734–737.Google Scholar
55. Condon, RE, Haley, RW, Lee, JT, Meakins, JL. Does infection control, control infection? Panel discussion—Surgical Infection Society, 1987. Arch Surg 1988;123:250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Haley, RW. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients: developing valid measures of intrinsic patient risk. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3b):145S–151S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Moro, ML, Jepsen, OB, The EURO.NIS Study Group. Infection control practices in intensive care units of 14 European countries. Intensive Care Med 1996;22:872–879.Google Scholar
58. Brun-Buisson, C. Practice guidelines for prevention of infection in European ICUs: a call for standards. Intensive Care Med 1996;22:847–848.Google Scholar
59. Rudolph, H, Hilbert, M. Infektionsstatistik. Hyg Med 1994;19:376–384. Editorial.Google Scholar
60. Miles, AA, Miles, EM, Burke, J. The value and duration of defense reactions of the skin to the primary lodgment of bacteria. Br J Exp Pathol 1957;38:79–96.Google Scholar
61. Burke, JK. The effective period of preventing antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961;50:161–168.Google Scholar
62. Polk, HC, Lopez-Mayor, JF. Postoperative wound infection: a prospective study of determinant factors and prevention. Surgery 1969;66:97–103.Google Scholar
63. Polk, HC. Contributions of alimentary tract surgery to modern infection control. Am J Surg 1987;153:2–8.Google Scholar
64. Jones, RN, Wojeski, W, Bakke, J, Porter, C, Searies, M. Antibiotic prophylaxis of 1,036 patients undergoing elective surgical procedures. A prospective, randomized comparative trial of cefazolin, cefoxitin, and cefotaxime in a prepaid medical practice. Am J Surg 1987;153:341–346.Google Scholar
65. Nichols, RL. Surgical infections: prevention and treatment— 1965 to 1995. Am J Surg 1996;172:68–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66. Platt, R, Zaleznik, DF, Hopkins, CC, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for herniorrhaphy and breast surgery. N Engl J Med 1990;332:153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Leaper, DJ. Prophylactic and therapeutic role of antibiotics in wound care. Am J Surg 1994;167(suppl 1a):15S–20S.Google Scholar
68. Bannister, GC. Infections in hip and knee prostheses. Curr Opin Orthop 1991;2:65–68.Google Scholar
69. Karran, SJ, Sutton, G, Gartell, P, et al. Imipenem prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1993;80:1196–1198.Google Scholar
70. Nichols, RL. Surgical infections: prevention and treatment— 1965 to 1995. Am J Surg 1996;172:68–74.Google Scholar
71. Archer, GL, Armstrong, BC. Alteration of staphylococcal flora in cardiac surgery patients receiving prophylaxis. J Infect Dis 1983;147:642–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Avery, CM, Jamieson, NV, Calne, RY. Administration of heparin and antibiotic prophylaxis. Br J Surg 1994;81:987–988.Google Scholar
73. Rüden, H, Daschner, F, Schumacher, M. Nosokomiale Infektionen in Deutschland: Erfassung und Prävention (NIDEP-Studie). Teil 1: Prävalenz nosokomialer Infektionen; Qualitätssicherung in der Krankenhaushygiene. Ed. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlag Baden; 1995.Google Scholar
74. Bauer, T, Vennits, BO, Holm, B, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute nonperforated appendicitis. Ann Surg 1989;62:307–311.Google Scholar
75. Gorbach, SL. Antibiotic prophylaxis for appendectomy and colorectal surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 10):815S–820S.Google Scholar
76. Classen, DC, Evans, RS, Pestotnik, SL, Horn, SD, Menlore, RL, Burke, JP. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281–286.Google Scholar
77. Neu, HC. Emergence and mechanisms of bacterial resistance in surgical infections. Am J Surg 1995;169(suppl 5a):13S–20S.Google Scholar
78. Low, DE, Willey, BM, Betschel, S, Kreiswirth, B. Enterococci: pathogens of the 90's. Eur J Surg 1994;573(suppl):19–24.Google Scholar
79. Jones, RN. Gram-positive superinfections following ß-lactam chemotherapy: the significance of the enterococcus. Infection 1985;13:581–588.Google Scholar
80. Leoung, GS, Chaisson, RE, Mills, J. Comparison of nosocomial infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci in a general hospital. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;165:339–342.Google Scholar
81. Wells, VD, Wong, ES, Murray, BE, Coudron, PE, Williams, DS, Markowitz, SM. Infections due to ß-lactamase-producing, highlevel gentamicin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis . Ann Intern Med 1992;116:285–292.Google Scholar
82. Zervos, MJ, Bacon, AE, Patterson, JE, Schaberg, DR, Kauffman, CA. Enterococcal superinfections in patients treated with ciprofloxacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;21:113–115.Google Scholar
83. Berkelman, RL, Bryan, RT, Osterholm, MT, LeDuc, JW, Hughes, JM. Infectious disease surveillance: a crumbling foundation. Science 1994;264:368–370.Google Scholar
84. Holzheimer, RG, Quoika, P, Pätzmann, D, Füssle, R. Nosocomial infections in general surgery: surveillance report from a German university clinic. Infection 1990;18:219–225.Google Scholar
85. Feliciano, DV, Gentry, LO, Bitondo, CG, et al. Single-agent cephalosporin prophylaxis for penetrating abdominal trauma. Results and comment on the emergence of the enterococcus. Am J Surg 1986;152:674–681.Google Scholar
86. Yu, V. Enterococcal superinfections and colonization after therapy with moxalactam, a new broad-spectrum antibiotic. Ann Intern Med 1981;94:784–785.Google Scholar
87. Zervos, M. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infections in the ICU and quinupristin/dalfopristin. New Horiz 1996;4:385–392.Google Scholar
88. Kingman, S. Resistance a European problem, too. Science 1994;264:363–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89. Finland, M, McGowan, JE. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients. Arch Surg 1976;111:143–145.Google Scholar
90. Barber, M. Reversal of antibiotic resistance to hospital staphylococcal infections. Br Med J 1960;1:11–17.Google Scholar
91. Chavigny, KH, Fischer, J. Competing risk factors with nosocomial infection in two university hospitals. J Hosp Infect 1984;5(suppl A):57–62.Google Scholar
92. Drusano, GL. Role of pharmacokinetics in the outcome of infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988;32:289–297.Google Scholar
93. Neu, H. Emerging trends in antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections. Eur J Surg 1994;573(suppl):7–18.Google Scholar
94. Moellering, RC. Past, present and future of antimicrobial agents. Am J Med 1995;99(suppl 6a):11S–18S.Google Scholar
95. Davies, J. Inactivation of antibiotics and the dissemination of resistance genes. Science 1994;264:375–382.Google Scholar
96. Tomasz, A. Multiple antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria. A report from the Rockefeller University workshop. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1247–1251.Google Scholar
97. Goldmann, DA, Weinstein, RA, Wenzel, RP, et al. Strategies to prevent and control the emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership. JAMA 1996;275:234–240 Google Scholar