GastrointestinalImpact of a Dual-Ring Wound Protector on Outcome After Elective Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
Introduction
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a major problem after surgery and is the second most frequent health care–associated infection in Europe and the United States.1, 2 SSI occurrence leads to sepsis, prolonged hospitalization, increased health care–related costs, and ultimately postoperative mortality.3, 4, 5 Higher rates of SSI have been reported in colorectal surgery (CRS) compared with other operations.6, 7 Therefore, medical devices to prevent SSI are of great medical and economic importance.
The benefit of dual-ring wound protectors (DRWPs) in decreasing SSI rate after CRS has been well documented in the past decade.1, 8, 9, 10 However, little data exist pertaining to the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with or without use of a DRWP. Therefore, this cohort study was conducted, with the primary endpoints being short- and long-term complications after CRC resection with or without use of a DRWP. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including wound recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The study included consecutive patients who underwent elective resection of primary CRC at a single institution from January 2005 to April 2014. The institutional review board of our hospital approved this study (KMUH-IRB-2012-03-02). Exclusion criteria were (1) nonconsent to the procedure, (2) local resection, (3) urgent surgery, (4) abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, and (5) without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. The physical status of the patient is accessed via the
Results
In total, 625 patients underwent curative CRC resection at the institution between January 2005 and April 2014. Of these patients, 625 were included in this study (Fig. 1). The study population included 360 men (57.6%), and the median age was 66 y (range, 20-92 y). Of the 625 patients, 348 (55.7%) were enrolled in the DRWP group and 277 were enrolled in the control group. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the enrolled patients. The percentage of patients with rectal cancer is
Discussion
Although several studies have assessed the efficacy of DRWPs in prevention of SSI after CRS, the majority of such studies had small sample sizes and included patients with both benign and malignant colorectal diseases.8, 9, 10 The present study included 625 patients with stage I–III CRC and investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of DRWP use in elective CRC surgery. The findings support the safety and efficacy of DRWP use in CRS.
The rate of SSI after CRS was significantly lower in the
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate the benefits of DRWPs for patients with CRC undergoing surgery, as indicated by the favorable short-term outcomes, fewer late complications, and similar long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, DRWP use should be considered for patients undergoing surgical CRC resection.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the contribution to data collection made by the Colorectal Cancer Group from the Cancer Center of Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital. This work was supported by grants through funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST108-2321-B-037-001, MOST107-2321-B-037-003, MOST107-2314-B-037-116, MOST107-2314-B-037-022-MY2, MOST107-2314-B-037-023-MY2) and the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW107-TDU-B-212-123006, MOHW107-TDU-B-212-114026B,
References (31)
- et al.
Surgical site infections: how high are the costs?
J Hosp Infect
(2009) - et al.
Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials on recurrence
Eur J Surg Oncol
(2008) Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection
- et al.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) pilot point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use
Euro Surveill
(2012) - et al.
The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
(1999) - et al.
Costs associated with surgical site infections in Veterans Affairs hospitals
JAMA Surg
(2014) - et al.
Evaluating an evidence-based bundle for preventing surgical site infection: a randomized trial
Arch Surg
(2011) - et al.
Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: the French GRECCAR III multicenter single-blinded randomized trial
Ann Surg
(2010) - et al.
Randomized, controlled investigation of the anti-infective properties of the Alexis retractor/protector of incision sites
J Trauma
(2007) - et al.
Barrier wound protection decreases surgical site infection in open elective colorectal surgery: a randomized clinical trial
Dis Colon Rectum
(2010)
ALEXIS O-Ring wound retractor vs conventional wound protection for the prevention of surgical site infections in colorectal resections
Colorectal Dis
Comparison of mini laparotomy with conventional laparotomy as the surgical approach in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: Appealing outcomes
Hepatogastroenterology
Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer
J Minim Access Surg
A observational study of the efficacy and safety of capecitabine versus bolus infusional 5-fluorouracil in pre-operative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer
Int J Colorectal Dis
Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey
Ann Surg
Cited by (7)
A meta-analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer
2024, International Wound JournalDelphi Consensus on Intraoperative Technical/Surgical Aspects to Prevent Surgical Site Infection after Colorectal Surgery
2022, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsUpdate on risk factors of surgical site infection in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2020, International Journal of Colorectal Disease