Effect of a Clean Surgical Airflow Layer on the Incidence of Infection in Total Hip Arthroplasty
| Autor: | Jeanine M. Gargiulo, Lucas K Routh, William G. Hamilton, Nancy L. Parks |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male Reoperation Operating Rooms medicine.medical_specialty Arthroplasty Replacement Hip Airflow Body Mass Index Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences Postoperative Complications 0302 clinical medicine Surgical site Humans Surgical Wound Infection Medicine Orthopedics and Sports Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Aged Retrospective Studies Aged 80 and over 030222 orthopedics business.industry Wound dehiscence Incidence Incidence (epidemiology) Middle Aged medicine.disease Surgery Incision Site Orthopedic surgery Female business Body mass index Total hip arthroplasty |
| Zdroj: | Orthopedics. 43 |
| ISSN: | 1938-2367 0147-7447 |
| Popis: | The Center for Health Design estimates that more than 30% of surgical site infections are caused by airborne pathogens. A device that creates a localized clean air field directly adjacent to and surrounding the incision site is meant to shield a surgical site from particulate in the operating room. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the routine use of this device would reduce the rate of infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The authors conducted a retrospective review of primary THA cases performed with and without the airflow device. Since July 2013, a total of 1093 primary THA cases were performed with the device at the authors' institution. The incidence of wound dehiscence and deep infection was compared with that of 1171 THA cases performed prior to July 2013 without the airflow device. There were no significant differences between the study groups regarding average patient age, sex, body mass index, or diagnosis. In the airflow group, there were 7 (0.64%) deep infections and 5 (0.46%) cases of wound dehiscence that required a return to the operating room for irrigation and wound revision. In the control group, there were 7 (0.60%) cases of deep infection and 4 (0.34%) wound revisions. The groups were not significantly different in the rates of infection ( P =1.0) or wound revision ( P =.75). Both groups had a very low incidence of infection and wound revision, with rates below 1%. Despite compelling bench data showing a dramatic reduction of particle load in the wound, the use of the airflow device did not reduce the clinical rate of infection over a large number of cases. [ Orthopedics . 2020;43(5):e425–e430.] |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|