Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 65577

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionKey MessageReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : October | Volume : 5 | Issue : 5 | Page : 935 - 939 Full Version

Study of Surgical Site Infections in Abdominal Surgeries


Published: October 1, 2011 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2011/.1814
Satyanarayana V., Prashanth H.V., Basavaraj Bhandare, Kavyashree A.N.

MBBS., M.D, Professor, Dept of Pharmacology, Rajarajeswari Medical College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. MBBS., M.D, Associate Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumkur, Karnataka, India. HOD of Department of Pharmacology, Rajarajeswari Medical College, Bangalore, India. MBBS., M.D Assistant Professor, Dept of Anatomy, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Satyanarayana V.
Professor, Dept of Pharmacology
Raja Rajeshwari Medical College, Bangalore,
Karnataka, India.
Phone: 09845692450
E-mail: satyanarayana72@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) have been responsible for the increasing cost, morbidity and mortality related to surgical operations and continue to be a major problem even in hospitals with most modern facilities and standard protocols of pre-operative preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis.

Aims: This study aimed to determine the incidence of SSI in the abdominal surgeries and to identify risk factors associated with the development of SSI.

Settings and Design: This retrospective observational study included patients who had undergone surgeries (abdominal) in the Department of General Surgery and Department of Obstetrics and Gynacology. It was conducted over a period of 18 months.

Materials and Methods: All surgeries (1000 cases) where abdominal wall was opened were considered for the study. Wound class was considered as clean, clean contaminated, contaminated and dirty based on the extent of intraoperative contamination. The data collected includes details of timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical wound infection, types of surgeries (emergency and elective surgeries), the wound classes, apart from demographic profile of the patient.

Results: The overall surgical wound infection rate was 13.7%. The infection rate was more with emergency surgery (25.2%) when compared to elective surgery (7.6%). The surgical site infection rate increased as the risk index score increased from 0 to 3. SSI was more with early operative and post operative prophylaxis. There was definite correlation between the wound infection rate and the timing of prophylaxis. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test was applied and the level of significance was set at 5%.

Conclusion: A pre-existing medical illness, prolonged operating time, the wound class, emergency surgeries and wound contamination strongly predispose to wound infection. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is effective in reducing the incidence of post-operative wound infections for a number of different operative procedures but, timing of administration is critical.

Keywords

Surgical site infection, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) risk index, Antibiotic prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION
Despite the advances made in asepsis, antimicrobial drugs, sterilization and operative techniques, surgical site infections (SSI) continue to be a major problem in all branches of surgery in the hospitals (1). They have been responsible for the increasing cost, morbidity and mortality related to surgical operations and continue to be a major problem even in hospitals with most modern facilities and standard protocols of preoperative preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. A major 30%-50% of antimicrobials prescribed in hospital practice are for surgical prophylaxis to prevent post-operative wound infection. A reduction in the infection rate to a minimal level could have significant benefits in terms of both patient comfort and medical resources used (2). This study aimed to determine the incidence of SSI in the abdominal surgeries and to identify risk factors associated with the development of SSI.

Material and Methods

This retrospective observational study was done in tertiary care centre Rajarajeshwari medical college hospital. All the 1000 abdominal surgeries conducted in the Department of General Surgery and in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynacology over a period of 18 months i e., from March 2010 to Aug 2011 were considered for the study. A sample size of 1000 cases was chosen for statistical purpose. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Committee of our Institution before the start of the study. All surgeries where abdominal wall was opened including caesarean section, abdominal hysterectomy and tubectomy were considered for the study. Those patients who were receiving antimicrobials for therapeutic purpose were excluded from the study.

Wound infection was diagnosed if any one of the following criteria were fulfilled: serous or non-purulent discharge from the wound, pusdischarge from the wound, serous or non-purulent discharge from the wound with signs of inflammation (oedema, redness, warmth, raised local temperature, fever > 38°C, tenderness, induration) and wound deliberately opened up by the surgeon due to localized collection (serous/purulent). Stitch abscesses were excluded from this study3. Wound class was considered as clean, clean contaminated, contaminated and dirty as per National Research Council classification criteria (Table/Fig 1), This classification is based on the extent of intraoperative contamination (4).

Timing of administration of prophylactic antimicrobial was considered early operative if it was given more than 2 hours before incision, pre-operative if it was given less than 2 hours before incision, peri-operative if it was during surgery and post-operative if it was given after the completion of surgery. The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) risk index was calculated for which, the three independent risk factors considered, namely, poor clinical condition of the patient [corresponding to levels 3, 4 or 5 of the ASA classification (Table/Fig 2) (4), a contaminated/ infected surgical wound, and surgery longer than 2 hr or longer than the cut-off point (the 75th percentile) prescribed for the type of procedure performed, are all allocated to a score of 1. By summation of the scores, patients are classified into four groups with scores from 0 to 3 (Table/Fig 3) (4).

The data collected includes details of timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical wound infection, types of surgeries (emergency and elective surgeries), the wound classes, Haemoglobin percentage, apart from demographic profile of the patient. The results were analyzed as per the following indicators:

1. Timing of administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis as early operative, pre-operative, peri-operative and post-operative. 2. Surgical site infection rate as per wound class, type of surgeries, timing of prophylaxis and NNIS risk index.

Statistical Analysis:Chi-square test was applied to detect the statistical significance between the variables and the level of significance was set at 5%.

Results

The present study included one thousand various types of abdominal surgical procedures performed (Table/Fig 4). A total of 17 types of abdominal procedures were performed out of which appendicectomy, caesarean section, abdominal hysterectomy and herniorraphy accounted for 61.2% of the total surgical procedures. The overall surgical wound infection rate was 13.7%. Out of 137 wound infections, appendicectomy, caesarean section, abdominal hysterectomy and small bowel surgeries themselves accounted for107 infections (78.1%). The surgical site infections with there rate according to wound class were recorded (Table/Fig 5). Infection rate is 3.9% in clean wounds where as it was 56.7% in dirty wounds. Thus there was clear correlation between the wound infection rate and the contamination of the wound.

The surgeries were grouped as emergency and elective surgery (Table/Fig 6). The infection rate was more with emergency surgery {87/345(25.2%)} when compared to elective surgery [50/655(7.6%)] which was statistically significant {P<0.001(c2 = 59.08)}. The hamoglobin percentage of the patients undergone surgery was taken into account. It was observed that patients having hamoglobin level below 9 gm% accounted for 5.5%. The wound infection rate was 21.8% (12/55) in these patients compared to 13.2% (125/945) in normal individuals (p> 0.05 c2 = 3.53) which was statistically not significant.

The surgical site infection rate increased as the risk index score increased from 0 to 3 (Table/Fig 6). Patients with risk index of 0 and 1 were considered as low risk and with 2 and 3 were considered as high risk. In high risk patients, infection rate was 33.2% (71/214) compared to 8.4% (66/786) in low risk patients (P < 0.001, c2 = 87.39). It was observed that in 81.8% (818) of patients prophylaxis was started post-operatively i.e. prophylaxis was started soon after the operation was completed, while only 10.2% of patients received prophylaxis pre-operatively i.e. within two hours before surgical incision. SSI was more with early operative and post-operative prophylaxis (Table/Fig 7). The surgical prophylaxis was given for ≤ 3days in 12.7% (127/1000), ≤ 7 days in 56.6% in (566/1000) and >7 days in 30.7% of cases.

The present study included one thousand various types of abdominal surgical procedures performed (Table/Fig 4). A total of 17 types of abdominal procedures were performed out of which appendicectomy, caesarean section, abdominal hysterectomy and herniorraphy accounted for 61.2% of the total surgical procedures. The overall surgical wound infection rate was 13.7%. Out of 137 wound infections, appendicectomy, caesarean section, abdominal hysterectomy and small bowel surgeries themselves accounted for107 infections (78.1%). The surgical site infections with there rate according to wound class were recorded (Table/Fig 5). Infection rate is 3.9% in clean wounds where as it was 56.7% in dirty wounds. Thus there was clear correlation between the wound infection rate and the contamination of the wound.

The surgeries were grouped as emergency and elective surgery (Table/Fig 6). The infection rate was more with emergency surgery {87/345(25.2%)} when compared to elective surgery [50/655(7.6%)] which was statistically significant {P<0.001(c2 = 59.08)}. The hamoglobin percentage of the patients undergone surgery was taken into account. It was observed that patients having hamoglobin level below 9 gm% accounted for 5.5%. The wound infection rate was 21.8% (12/55) in these patients compared to 13.2% (125/945) in normal individuals (p> 0.05 c2 = 3.53) which was statistically not significant.

The surgical site infection rate increased as the risk index score increased from 0 to 3 (Table/Fig 6). Patients with risk index of 0 and 1 were considered as low risk and with 2 and 3 were considered as high risk. In high risk patients, infection rate was 33.2% (71/214) compared to 8.4% (66/786) in low risk patients (P < 0.001, c2 = 87.39). It was observed that in 81.8% (818) of patients prophylaxis was started post-operatively i.e. prophylaxis was started soon after the operation was completed, while only 10.2% of patients received prophylaxis pre-operatively i.e. within two hours before surgical incision. SSI was more with early operative and post-operative prophylaxis (Table/Fig 7). The surgical prophylaxis was given for

Discussion

The etiology of surgical site infections is dependent on the location of the surgery, the bacterial load in the tissue or blood peri-operatively and the integrity of host defences (5). The overall infection rate is around 2-5% for extra abdominal surgeries and about 20% for intra abdominal injuries but varies from surgeon to surgeon, hospital to hospital, one procedure to another and even from one patient to another patient (5). In our study, the overall surgical wound infection rate was 13.7%. Many studies from India at different places have shown the SSI rate to vary from 6.09% to 38.7% (1), (3), (6), (7). In some surgical procedures for example in cholecystectomy, transvesical prostectomy, the high infection rate is reflected because of inadequate sample size in the respective surgical procedures. The infection rate in Indian hospitals is much higher than that in other countries; for instance in the USA, it is 2.8% and it is 2-5% in European countries (1). The higher infection rate in Indian hospitals may be due to the poor set up of our hospitals and also due to the lack of attention towards the basic infection control measures. Surgical site infection rate increased from clean to dirty wound. Similar results were observed in other studies also (2), (8), (9). Garibaldi et al (10) found that 30 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria cultured from a wound are predictive of wound infection regardless of wound class. In addition, a prospective study of 190 colorectal surgery patients has shown that a concentration of 5 CFU per millilitre or higher of bacteria in the peritoneal fluid are predictive of wound infection (2).

The infection rate was more with emergency surgery (25.2%) when compared to elective surgery (7.6%). The high rates of infection in emergency surgeries can be attributed to inadequate pre-operative preparation, the underlying conditions which predisposed to the emergency surgery and the more frequency of contaminated or dirty wounds in emergency surgeries (1).

A statistically significant association was observed between the rate of SSIs, the order of the operation (number of the particular operation in the OT list on that day) and the duration of the operation. As the order and the duration of the operation increased, the rate of SSIs also increased. The factors which were incriminated were the onset of fatigue, resulting in a decline of aseptic measures and an increase in pollution in the operation theatre with the lapse of time (3),(11). The wound infection rate was 21.8% (12/55) in those patients with hamoglobin <9% compared to 13.2% (125/945) in normal individuals. Similar results were observed by Awan MS (12). However, Anamia itself is not an established factor for SSI (12).

The surgical wound infection rate increased as the risk index score increased. Similar results were observed by Raka L et al (13), where the SSI rate was low with risk index 0 and increased with index of 2 and 3. We found a good correlation between the NNIS System risk index and the development of SSI.

The administration of prophylaxis longer than 2 hours prior to surgery or post-operatively was confirmed to be associated with a higher SSI rate (Table/Fig 7). Similar observations were made by study done by Platon E M et al (14). Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the microbial burden of the intra-operative contamination to a level that could not overwhelm the host defences. The pre operative antibiotic prophylaxis could decrease post-operative morbidity, shorten the hospital stay and it could also reduce the overall costs which were attributable to the infection (15). Timing of administration is critical. The drug should be administered ideally within 30 minutes and certainly within two hours of the time of incision (16). The first dose should always be given before the skinincision is performed. For longer procedures, readministration of the drug is indicated at intervals of one or two times the half-life of the drug (using the same dose) (17). This ensures adequate tissue levels throughout the duration of the procedure. The duration of an adequate tissue level of the antibiotic need not exceed the operative period.

The duration of administration is extended only in special circumstances, such as gross contamination secondary to a ruptured viscus or severe trauma. The available data provide no evidence for the efficacy of extending coverage to 24 to 48 hours in such contexts (18). The disadvantages in continuing prophylaxis for long duration are (1) cost of prophylaxis, (2) stay in hospital and more importantly (3) the development of drug resistant organisms.

Post-operative prophylaxis accounts for 81.8% which could probably be due to more of clean wound surgeries (Table/Fig 5). Preoperative prophylaxis are usually strictly planned and followed in cases of dirty wounds which are less in number in our study. Prophylaxis is recommended for most gastrointestinal procedures. The number of organisms and proportion of anaerobic organisms progressively increase along the gastrointestinal tract, so the recommendation depends on the segment of gastrointestinal tract entered during the procedure (19). The intrinsic risk of infection associated with procedures entering the stomach, duodenum and proximal small bowel is quite low and does not support a routine recommendation for prophylaxis. However, the predominance of clinical practice involves special circumstances that alter this recommendation. Any context associated with decreased gastric acidity is associated with a marked increase in the number of bacteria and the risk of wound infection (19). Therefore, previous use of antacids, histamine blockers or a proton pump inhibitor qualifies the patient for prophylaxis. Prophylaxis is also indicated for procedures treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Stasis also leads to an increase in bacterial counts, so prophylaxis is warranted in procedures to correct obstruction. In addition, the intrinsic risk of infection in patients with morbid obesity and advanced malignancy is sufficiently high to warrant prophylaxis in these cases. Although the local flora is altered in these patients, cefazolin provides adequate prophylaxis and is the recommended agent. Colorectal procedures have a very high intrinsic risk of infection and warrant a strong recommendation for prophylaxis. Antibiotic spectrum should be directed at gram-negative aerobes and anaerobic bacteria.

Since our study was retrospective study, certain parameters like blood glucose level at the time of surgery were not included. Another limitation of our study was that it included SSIs which occurred within the hospital and cases which may have developed SSI after discharge within 30 days were not included as post discharge surveillance of wound infection was not done in our hospital. So a prospective study with post discharge surveillance upto 30 days would yield more information.

Prophylactic antibiotic therapy seems indicated whenever (1) the consequences of wound infection are uniformly disastrous, even though the occurrence of this sepsis is uncommon. (2) the incidence of wound infection is great, yet seldom does it ever threaten life. (3) the patient has such an extreme impairment in host defence mechanisms that any infection, no matter how minor has a propensity for becoming systemic and there by fatal (5). Incidences of SSI that originate primarily from the care procedures provided during hospitalization, which is about 30% cases, can be avoided if appropriate precautions are taken (4). A sound antibiotic policy, reduction of length of procedures through adequate training ofthe staff on proper surgical techniques, proper intra-operative infection control measures and feedback of appropriate data to surgeons regarding SSIs would be desirable to reduce the surgical site infection rate (1), (3), (13). The benefits to be gained from a preventive antibiotic program includes reduction in both morbidity and mortality. Additional and certainly the other advantages are a conservation of hospital bed space and the potential for great savings in money to be expanded for individual patient care (5).

In most of the western hospitals, a wound surveillance cell is present where the wound infection nurse is the data manager gathering facts from charts and tabulates the wound infection rate according to surgical speciality. The observation period for such surveillance is 30 days. Various solutions have been proposed for improving capture of late wounds infections including telephone calls to patients or mailed follow up questionnaires in such hospitals (21), (22). In India wound surveillance method is still in infantry stage and such a surveillance system is very much needed in every hospital.

Conclusion

Surgical site infection is increasingly recognized as a measure of the quality of patient care by surgeons, infection control practitioners, health planners and public. Although surgical site infections cannot be completely eliminated, a reduction in the infection rate to a minimal level could have significant benefits, by reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality, and wastage of health care resources. A pre-existing medical illness, prolonged operating time, the wound class, and wound contamination strongly predispose to wound infection. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is effective in reducing the incidence of post-operative wound infections for a number of different operative procedures but, timing of administration is critical. The drug should be administered ideally within 30 minutes and certainly within two hours of the time of incision. The judicious use of antibiotic prophylaxis and the use of an organised system of wound surveillance and reporting are the most effective means to reduce the wound infection rate to an attainable minimum (2).

Key Message

SSIs remains as one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality in surgically treated patients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is effective in reducing the incidence of post-operative wound infections for a number of different operative procedures but, timing of administration is critical. An organised system of wound surveillance and reporting are the most effective means to reduce the wound infection rate to an attainable minimum

References

1.
Mahesh C B, Shivakumar S, Suresh BS, Chidanand SP, Vishwanath Y. A prospective study of surgical site infections in a teaching hospital. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2010 October; 4:3114-9.
2.
Nandi PL, Rajan SS, Mak KC, Chan SC, So YP. Surgical wound infection. HKMJ 1999; 5: 82-6.
3.
Lilani SP, Jangale N, Chowdhary A, Daver GB. Surgical site infection in clean and clean-contaminated cases. Indian J Med Microbiol 2005; 23:249-52.
4.
Ercole FF, Starling CEF, Chianca TCM, Carneiro M. Applicability of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System Risk Index for the Prediction of Surgical Site Infections: A Review. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 2007; 11(1):134-41.
5.
Yohannes Y, Mengesha Y, Tewelde Y. Timing, choice and duration of peri-operative prophylactic antibiotic use in surgery: A teaching hospital based experience from Eritrea, in 2009. Journal of Eritrean Medical Association 2009;65-7.
6.
Anvikar AR, Deshmukh AB, Karyakarte RP, Damle AS, Patwardhan NS, Malik AK, et al . A one year prospective study of 3,280 surgical wounds. Indian J Med Microbiol 1999; 17:129-32.
7.
Ganguly. PS, Khan Y. Malik A. Nosocomial infection and hospital procedures. Indian J. common Med.2000; 990-1014.
8.
Krukowski Z H, Stewart M P M, Alsayer H M, Matheson N A. Infection after abdominal surgery: Five year prospective study. British Medical Journal 1984; 288:278-80.
9.
Kamat US, Fereirra AMA, Kulkarni MS, Motghare DD. A prospective study of surgical site infections in a teaching hospital in Goa. Indian J Surg 2008; 70:120-4.
10.
Garibaldi RA, Cushing D, Lerer T. Risk factors for post-operative infection. Am J Med 1991; 91(Suppl 3B):158S-163S.
11.
Tripathy BS, Roy N. Post –operative wound sepsis. Indian. J sur 1984; 285-8.
12.
Awan MS, Dhari FJ, Laghari AA, Bilal F, Khaskheli NM. Surgical Site infection in Elective Surgery. Journal of surgery Pakistan 2011; 16(1):33-7.
13.
Raka L, Krasniqi A, Hoxha F, Musa R, Mulliqi G, Krasniqi S et al. Surgical site infections in an abdominal surgical ward at Kosovo Teaching Hospital. J Infect Developing Countries 2007; 1(3):337-41.
14.
Platon E M, Antolin JAJ, Zubiqaray S, Garcia PB. The effect of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and the timing of its administration on the risk of surgical wound infection. Rev Clin Esp.1995 Oct; 195(10):669-73.
15.
Haley RW, Schaberg DR, Crossley KB, Von Allmen SD, Mac Gowan JE. Extra charges and prolongation of stay attributable to nosocomial infections; a prospective inter hospital comparision. Am J Med 1981; 70:51-8.
16.
Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Horn SD, Menlove RL, Burke JP, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 281-6.
17.
Nichols RL. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. Med Clin North Am 1995; 79:509-22.
18.
Dellinger EP. Antibiotic prophylaxis in trauma: penetrating abdominal injuries and open fractures. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(Suppl 10): S847-57.
19.
Dellinger EP, Gross PA, Barrett TL, Krause PJ, Martone WJ, McGowan JE Jr, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18:422-7.
20.
Humphreys H. Preventing surgical site infection, where now?. J Hospital infection 2009; 73: 316-22.
21.
Olson MM, Lee JT. Continuous 10 year wound infection surveillance results, advantages and unanswered questions. Arch Surg 1990; 125:794.
22.
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson MI, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, The Hospital Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of Surgical Site Infection 1999. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1999; 20(4): 265-7.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1814

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com