Surgical Infection Society: Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Antibiotic Use during Surgical Stabilization of Traumatic Rib or Sternal Fractures to Reduce Risk of Implant Infection

Abstract

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is recommended in patients with flail chest or multiple displaced rib fractures with physiologic compromise. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) and surgical stabilization of sternal fractures (SSSF) involve open reduction and internal fixation of fractures with a plate construct to restore anatomic alignment. Most plate constructs are composed of titanium and presence of this foreign, non-absorbable material presents opportunity for implant infection. Although implant infection rates after SSRF and SSSF are low, they present a challenging clinical entity often requiring prolonged antibiotic therapy, debridement, and potentially implant removal.

Methods: The Surgical Infection Society’s Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and Chest Wall Injury Society’s Publication Committee convened to develop recommendations for antibiotic use during and after surgical stabilization of traumatic rib and sternal fractures. Clinical scenarios included patients with concomitant infectious processes (sepsis, pneumonia, empyema, cellulitis) or sources of contamination (open chest, gross contamination) incurred as a result of their trauma and present at the time of their surgical stabilization. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent studies. Using a process of iterative consensus, all committee members voted to accept or reject each recommendation.

Results: For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF in the absence of pre-existing infectious process, there is insufficient evidence to suggest existing peri-operative guidelines or recommendations are inadequate. For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF in the presence of sepsis, pneumonia, or an empyema, there is insufficient evidence to provide recommendations on duration and choice of antibiotic. This decision may be informed by existing guidelines for the concomitant infection. For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF with an open or contaminated chest there is insufficient evidence to provide specific antibiotic recommendations.

Conclusions: This guideline document summarizes the current Surgical Infection Society and Chest Wall Injury Society recommendations regarding antibiotic use during and after surgical stabilization of traumatic rib or sternal fractures. Limited evidence exists in the chest wall surgical stabilization literature and further studies should be performed to delineate risk of implant infection among patients undergoing SSSRF or SSSF with concomitant infectious processes.

Surgical Infection Society Guidance for Restoration of Surgical Services during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic

Abstract

Background: As the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues globally, high numbers of new infections are developing nationwide, particularly in the U.S. Midwest and along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The need to accommodate growing numbers of hospitalized patients has led facilities in affected areas to suspend anew or curtail normal hospital activities, including elective surgery, even as earlier-affected areas normalized surgical services. Backlogged surgical cases now number in the tens of millions globally. Facilities will be hard-pressed to address these backlogs, even absent the recrudescence of COVID-19. This document provides guidance for the safe and effective resumption of surgical services as circumstances permit. 

Methods: Review and synthesis of pertinent international peer-reviewed literature, with integration of expert opinion. 

Results: The “second-wave” of serious infections is placing the healthcare system under renewed stress. Surgical teams likely will encounter persons harboring the virus, whether symptomatic or not. Continued vigilance and protection of patients and staff remain paramount. Reviewed are the impact of COVID-19 on the surgical workforce, considerations for operating on a COVID-19 patient and the outcomes of such operations, the size and nature of the surgical backlog, and the logistics of resumption, including organizational considerations, patient and staff safety, preparation of the surgical candidate, and the role of enhanced recovery programs to reduce morbidity, length of stay, and cost by rational, equitable resource utilization. 

Conclusions: Resumption of surgical services requires institutional commitment (including teams of surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, dieticians, and administrators). Structured protocols and equitable implementation programs, and iterative audit, planning, and integration will improve outcomes, enhance safety, preserve resources, and reduce cost, all of which will contribute to safe and successful reduction of the surgical backlog.

Surgical Infection Society Guidance for Operative and Peri-Operative Care of Adult Patients Infected by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-associated viral infection (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) is a virulent, contagious viral pandemic that is affecting populations worldwide. As with any airborne viral respiratory infection, surgical and non-surgical patients may be affected. 

Methods: Review and synthesis of pertinent English-language literature pertaining to COVID-19 infection among adult patients. 

Results: COVID-19 disease that requires hospitalization results in critical illness approximately 25% of the time and requires mechanical ventilation with positive airway pressure. Acute kidney injury, a marked hypercoagulable state, and sometimes myocarditis can be features of COVID-19 in addition to the characteristic severe acute lung injury. Even if not among the most seriously afflicted, older patients with medical comorbidities are both predisposed to infection and risk increased morbidity and mortality, however, all persons presenting for surgical intervention should be suspected of infection (and thus transmissibility) even if asymptomatic. Although most elective surgery has been curtailed by administrative or governmental fiat, patients will still need urgent or emergency operative intervention for time-sensitive disease processes such as malignant neoplasia or for true emergencies such as perforated viscus or traumatic injury. It is possible to provide safe surgical care for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and minimize nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers. 

Conclusions: This guidance will facilitate appropriate protection of patients and staff, and maintenance of infection control measures to assist surgical personnel and facilities to prepare for COVID-19-infected adult patients requiring urgent or emergent operative intervention and to provide optimal patient care.

Role of Empiric Anti-Fungal Therapy in the Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

Abstract

Background: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects four million people worldwide. Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) occurs in less than 15% of cases but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Administration of antibiotics is standard treatment for gastrointestinal perforations, including PPU. Although fungal growth is common in peritoneal fluid cultures from patients with PPU, current data suggest empiric anti-fungal therapy fails to improve outcomes. To examine the role of anti-fungal agents in the treatment of PPU, the Surgical Infection Society hosted an Update Symposium at its 37th Annual Meeting. Here, we provide a synopsis of the symposium’s findings and a brief review of prospective and retrospective reports on the subject. 

Methods: A search of Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed between January 1, 2000, and November 1, 2018, comparing outcomes of PPU following empiric anti-fungal treatment versus no anti-fungal therapy. We used the search terms “perforated peptic ulcer,” “gastroduodenal ulcer,” “anti-fungal,” and “perforated” or “perforation.” 

Results: There are no randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes specifically for patients with PPU treated with or without empiric anti-fungal therapy. We identified one randomized multi-center trial evaluating outcomes for patients with intra-abdominal perforations, including PPU, that were treated with or without empiric anti-fungal therapy. We identified one single-center prospective series and three additional retrospective studies comparing outcomes for patients with PPU treated with or without empiric anti-fungal therapy. 

Conclusion: The current evidence reviewed here does not demonstrate efficacy of anti-fungal agents in improving outcomes in patients with PPU. As such, we caution against the routine use of empiric anti-fungal agents in these patients. Further studies should help identify specific subpopulations of patients who might derive benefit from anti-fungal therapy and help define appropriate treatment regimens and durations that minimize the risk of resistance, adverse events, and cost.

Antibiotics versus No Antibiotics for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis: Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

Abstract

Background: Acute diverticulitis occurs in 25% of individuals with diverticular disease and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Disease severity is classified as uncomplicated or complicated, with the latter including perforation, fistula, obstruction, or distant abscess. Uncomplicated diverticulitis often improves without surgery or invasive therapies. Administration of antibiotics is a standard of care for treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. However, recent data suggest antibiotics do not influence outcomes significantly. To address these conflicting approaches, the Surgical Infection Society hosted an Update Symposium at its 37th Annual Meeting examining the role of antibiotics in the treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Here, we provide a synopsis of the symposium’s findings and a brief review of recent prospective and randomized clinical trials on the topic.

Methods: A search of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was performed for prospective series and randomized clinical trials published between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2018, comparing outcomes of antibiotic versus no antibiotic therapy for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Results: We identified two single-center prospective series and two randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes for patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis treated with antibiotics versus no antibiotics.

Conclusion: Current evidence does not support administration of antibiotics to improve outcomes in carefully selected healthy patients with acute uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis. Further studies should help identify specific subpopulations of patients who would derive benefit from antibiotic therapy and help define appropriate antibiotic regimens and treatment durations that minimize cost, adverse effects, and risk of anti-microbial resistance.

Antibiotics vs. Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Adults: Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

Abstract

Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the United States, with a lifetime risk of 7%-8%. The treatment paradigm for complicated appendicitis has evolved over the past decade, and many cases now are managed by broad-spectrum antibiotics. We determined the role of non-operative and operative management in adult patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods: Several meta-analyses have attempted to clarify the debate. Arguably the most influential is the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) Trial.

Results: According to the non-inferiority analysis and a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -24%, the APPAC did not demonstrate non-inferiority of antibiotics vs. appendectomy. Significantly, however, the operations were nearly always open, whereas the majority of appendectomies in the United States are done laparoscopically; and laparoscopic and open appendectomies are not equivalent operations. Treatment with antibiotics is efficacious more than 70% of the time. However, a switch to an antimicrobial-only approach may result in a greater probability of antimicrobial-associated collateral damage, both to the host patient and to antibiotic susceptibility patterns. A surgery-only approach would result in a reduction in antibiotic exposure, a consideration in these days of focus on antimicrobial stewardship.

Conclusion: Future studies should focus on isolating the characteristics of appendicitis most susceptible to antibiotics, using laparoscopic operations as controls and identifying long-term side effects such as antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile colitis.

Prevention of Infection at the Surgical Site

Introduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

Abstract

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of health-care–associated infection (HAI) and adds considerably to the individual, social, and economic costs of surgical treatment. This document serves to introduce the updated Guideline for the Prevention of SSI from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). The Core section of the guideline addresses issues relevant to multiple surgical specialties and procedures. The second procedure-specific section focuses on a high-volume, high-burden procedure: Prosthetic joint arthroplasty. While many elements of the 1999 guideline remain current, others warrant updating to incorporate new knowledge and changes in the patient population, operative techniques, emerging pathogens, and guideline development methodology.