Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:31:12.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wound Infection After Cesarean Section

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Hedvig Pelle ,
Ole B. Jepsen ,
Severin O. Larsen ,
Jens Bo ,
Flemming Christensen ,
Anne Dreisler ,
Per J. Jørgensen ,
Annette Kirstein ,
Morten Kjøller  and
Aksel Lange
...Show all authors
Hedvig Pelle
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Ole B. Jepsen*
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Severin O. Larsen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Jens Bo
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Flemming Christensen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Anne Dreisler
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Per J. Jørgensen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Annette Kirstein
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Morten Kjøller
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Aksel Lange
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Kjeld Laursen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Carsten N.A. Nickelsen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Mogens Osler
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
Helen Rasmussen
Affiliation:
National Center for Hospital Hygieneand the Department of Biostatistics, Statens Seruminstitut, Rigshospitalet, and the Glostrup, Herlev, Gentofte, Hvidovre, andHillerød Hospitals, Denmark
*
National Center for Hospital Hygiene, Statens Seruminstitut, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A prospective multicenter study of 1,032 cesarean sections was performed to identify risk factors for postoperative wound infection. The overall rate of wound infection was 6.6% (3.8% in elective cases and 7.5% following nonelective operations), with considerable interhospital variation. Obesity was recognized as a patient-related risk factor, while risk factors inherent to the obstetric situation were duration of ruptured membranes prior to operation, fetal and labor monitoring by intrauterine devices, and omission of the use of plastic draping and redisinfection of the skin before closure. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of these factors on the probability of wound infection. Certain risk factors associated with and overrepresented in nonelective operations would explain the increased infection rates in these, and the observed interhospital variations did not differ from the expected rates when the distribution of other risk factors was considered.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 9 , September 1986 , pp. 456 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

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.Trends in surgical wound rates—United States. MMWR 1980; 29:27–33.Google Scholar
2.Green, SL, Sarubbi, FA: Risk factors associated with post caesarean section febrile morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 49:686–690.Google Scholar
3.D'Angelo, L, Sokol, RJ: Time-related peripartum determinants of postpartum morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55:319–325.Google Scholar
4.Rehe, M, Nilsson, CG: Risk factors for febrile morbidity associated with caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56:269–273.Google Scholar
5.Hawrylyshyn, PA, Bernstein, P, Papsin, FR: Risk factors associated with infection following caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139:294–298.Google Scholar
6.Nielsen, TF, Hökegaård, KH: Postoperative caesarean section morbidity: A prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146:911–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Rothbard, MJ, Mayer, W, Wystepek, A, et al: Prophylactic antibiotics in caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 45:421–424.Google Scholar
8.Stage, AH, Long, H, Silberman, R, et al: Wound infection following caesarean section. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977; 145:882–884.Google Scholar
9.Gibbs, RS, Blanco, JD, Clair, PJ: A case-control study of wound abscess after caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:498–501.Google Scholar
10.Moir-Bussy, BR, Hutton, RM, Thompson, JR: Wound infection after caesarean section. J Hosp Infect 1984; 5:359–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Dixon, WJ (ed): BMDP Statistical Software. Berkeley, University of California Press. 1983, pp 330–344.Google Scholar
12.Jessen, P, Osler, M: Sectio caesarea. Ugeskr Laeger 1979; 141:2587–2591.Google Scholar
13.Placek, PJ, Taffel, S, Moien, M: Caesarean section delivery rates: United States 1981. Am J Public Health 1983; 73:861–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Ott, WJ: Primary caesarean section: Factors related to postpartum infection. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 57:171–176.Google Scholar
15.Farrell, SJ, Andersen, HF, Work, BA: Caesarean section: Indications and postoperative morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56:696–700.Google Scholar
16.Williams, RL, Chen, PM: Controlling the rise in caesarean section rates by the dissemination of information from vital records. Am J Public Health 1983; 73:863–867.Google Scholar
17.Magrane, DM, Blaskiewicz, RJ: Amniotic fluid cultures: Post-caesarean section endomyometritis and neonatal infections. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61:339–343.Google Scholar
18.Ayliffe, GAJ: The effect of antibacterial agents on the flora of the skin. J Hosp Infect 1980; 2:111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Cruse, P: Wound infection surveillance. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3:734–737.Google Scholar
20.Olson, M, O'Connor, M, Schwartz, ML: Surgical wound infection. A 5-year prospective study of 20,193 wounds at the Minneapolis VA medical center. Ann Surg 1984; 199:253–259.Google Scholar
21.Schmidt, G: Kajsarsnitt. Tidsskrift for jordemødre 1984; 94:(3)4–13.Google Scholar