Surgical Infection Society Research Articles

Antibiotics Prophylaxis for Elective Pediatric Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies

BackgroundThe Surgical Infection Society (SIS) guidelines recommend against the use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) for low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies. MethodsUsing National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data, 5,440 pediatric patients were identified who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2021-2022. Patients who had immunodeficiency, active malignancy, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification 3-5, procedure indicated for infection, emergent procedure, received intravenous antibiotics before the prophylaxis window, or missing SAP data were excluded. Results3,959 patients were included in the analysis. Among these patients, 3,570 (90.2%) received SAP. Overall incidence of 30-day superficial incisional surgical site infection (SSI), deep incisional SSI, and organ space SSI were 0.9%, 0.0%, and 0.1%, respectively. The incidence of superficial incisional SSI was significantly higher in the patients who did not receive SAP (SAP 0.8%, no SAP 2.1%; p=0.024). The incidence of organ space SSI was also significantly higher in the patients who did not receive SAP (SAP 0.1%, no SAP 0.8%; p=0.008). There was no difference in the incidence of C. diff colitis (SAP 0.1%, no SAP 0.0%; p=1.000). Multivariable modeling, controlling for Hispanic ethnicity, age, and gender, demonstrated patients that received SAP were significantly less likely to have any postoperative SSI compared to patients who did not receive SAP (OR=0.35). ConclusionHospitals are not currently compliant with SIS guidelines regarding omission of antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The authors advocate for additional studies and reassessment of current guidelines for pediatric patients given the above findings. Type of StudyRetrospective comparative study Level of EvidenceIII

The Surgical Infection Society Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection: 2024 Update.

Background: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2017. Here, we present the most recent guideline update based on a systematic review of current literature. Methods: The writing group, including current and former members of the SIS Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and other individuals with content or guideline expertise within the SIS, working with a professional librarian, performed a systematic review using PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from 2016 until February 2024. Keyword descriptors combined "surgical site infections" or "intra-abdominal infections" in adults limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Additional relevant publications not in the initial search but identified during literature review were included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the evidence. The strength of each recommendation was rated strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of the evidence was rated high (A), moderate (B), or weak (C). The guideline contains new recommendations and updates to recommendations from previous IAI guideline versions. Final recommendations were developed by an iterative process. All writing group members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: This updated evidence-based guideline contains recommendations from the SIS for the treatment of adult patients with IAI. Evidence-based recommendations were developed for antimicrobial agent selection, timing, route of administration, duration, and de-escalation; timing of source control; treatment of specific pathogens; treatment of specific intra-abdominal disease processes; and implementation of hospital-based antimicrobial agent stewardship programs. Summary: This document contains the most up-to-date recommendations from the SIS on the prevention and management of IAI in adult patients.

An Exploratory and Qualitative Analysis of Self-Reported Evaluations for Fever.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of post-operative fever, a variety of approaches are taken as to the components of a fever evaluation, when it should be undertaken, and when empiric antibiotic agents should be started. Hypothesis: There is a lack of consensus surrounding many common components of a post-operative fever evaluation. Patients and Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed to determine practices surrounding evaluation of post-operative fever. Eight scenarios were posed in febrile (38.5°C), post-operative general surgery or trauma patients, with 19 possible components of work-up (physical examination, complete blood count [CBC], fungal biomarkers, lactate and procalcitonin [PCT] concentrations, cultures, imaging) and management (antibiotic agents). Each scenario was then re-considered for intensive care unit (ICU) patients (intubated/unstable hemodynamics). Agreement on a parameter (<1/4 or >3/4 of respondents) achieved consensus, positive or negative. Parameters between had equipoise; α was set at 0.05. Results: Among the examined scenarios, only CBC and physical examination received positive consensus across most scenarios. Blood/urine cultures, imaging, lactate, inflammatory biomarkers, and the empiric administration of antibiotic agents did not reach consensus; support was variable depending on the clinical scenario, illness severity, and the individual preferences of the answering clinician. The qualitative portion of the survey identified "fever threshold and duration," "clinical suspicion," and "physiologic manifestation" as the most important factors for deciding about the initiation of a fever evaluation and the potential empiric administration of antibiotic agents. Conclusions: There is consensus only for physical and examination routine laboratory work when initiating the evaluation of febrile post-operative patients. However, there are multiple components of a fever evaluation that individual respondents would select depending on the clinical scenario and severity of illness. Parameters demonstrating equipoise are potential candidates for formal guidance or pragmatic prospective trials.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in trauma: Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery, Surgical Infection Society Europe, World Surgical Infection Society, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines.

Trauma is a complex disease, and the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) in trauma patients is common practice. However, considering the increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, AP use should be questioned and limited only to specific cases. Antibiotic stewardship is of paramount importance in fighting resistance spread. Definitive rules or precise indications about AP in trauma remain unclear. The present article describes the indications of AP in traumatic lesions to the head, brain, torso, maxillofacial, extremities, skin, and soft tissues endorsed by the Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery, Surgical Infection Society Europe, World Surgical Infection Society, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and World Society of Emergency Surgery.

A Pathway for Increased Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Surgical Infection Society.

Background: With the rise of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts across medicine, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) leadership undertook a several-year mission to evaluate DEI issues within the SIS, through the formation of a DEI Ad Hoc Committee to guide the application of best practices. The purpose of this article is to describe the work of the DEI committee since its inception, as well as report on advances made during that time. Methods: Beginning in September 2020, 26 volunteer committee members met monthly to explore the current state of science and best practices around DEI, identify opportunities for the SIS, and translate opportunities into recommendations. As part of this initiative, a survey of the SIS membership was conducted. Survey results, published best practices from business and medicine, and experiences of committee members were utilized collaboratively to outline specific opportunities and recommendations. These findings were presented to the SIS Executive Council and to the membership at the SIS Annual Business Meeting. Results: Committee-identified opportunities and recommendations fell into broad categories of Membership, Leadership and Society Structure, the Annual Meeting, and Research Priorities. Several recommendations were immediately enacted, and a standing DEI committee was established to continue this work. Conclusions: Beyond the main mission of the SIS to advance the science of surgical infections, the SIS can also have a major impact on DEI within society and academic surgery at large.

Introduction to A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections In Acute-Care Hospitals: 2022 Updates.

Since the initial publication of A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals in 2008, the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has continued to be a national priority. Progress in healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and implementation science research has led to improvements in our understanding of effective strategies for HAI prevention. Despite these advances, HAIs continue to affect ∼1 of every 31 hospitalized patients, leading to substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess healthcare expenditures, and persistent gaps remain between what is recommended and what is practiced.The widespread impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on HAI outcomes in acute-care hospitals has further highlighted the essential role of infection prevention programs and the critical importance of prioritizing efforts that can be sustained even in the face of resource requirements from COVID-19 and future infectious diseases crises.The Compendium: 2022 Updates document provides acute-care hospitals with up-to-date, practical expert guidance to assist in prioritizing and implementing HAI prevention efforts. It is the product of a highly collaborative effort led by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of organizations and societies with content expertise, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (PIDS), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and others.

Self-Reported Diagnosis and Management of Surgical Site Infection Highlights Lack of Objective Measures and Treatment Guidance.

Background: There is little guidance regarding empiric therapy for superficial surgical site infections (SSIs). Management of incisions with signs of SSI lacks consensus and management is variable among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society was surveyed regarding management of SSIs. Cases were provided with varying wound descriptions, initial wound class (WC), post-operative day, and presence of a prosthesis. Responses were in multiple-choice format; statistics: χ2; α = 0.05. Results: Seventy-eight members responded. For appearance scenarios, respondents believed that both mild erythema (55%) and clear drainage (64%) could be observed, whereas substantial (>3 cm) erythema or purulence should be treated with complete (22% and 50%) or partial (55% and 40%) opening of the incision. Degree of erythema did not influence administration of antibiotic agents, but purulence was more likely than clear drainage to be treated with antibiotics (38% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). There were no differences based on WC, except that clean cases were more likely than higher WC scenarios to be treated with gram-positive coverage alone (WC 1 [26%] vs. 2 [10%] vs. 3 [13%] vs. 4 [4%]; p < 0.001). Post-operative day (POD) three appeared to be an inflection point for more aggressive treatment of suspected incisional SSI, with fewer (POD 0 [86%] vs. POD day 3 [54%]; p < 0.001) reporting observation. Respondents were more likely to obtain imaging, start broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and return to the operating room for purulence in the presence of a mesh. Conclusions: Presented with escalating possibility of SSI, respondents reported lower rates of observation, increased use of antibiotic agents, and increased surgical drainage. Many scenarios lack consensus regarding appropriate therapy. The complete elimination of SSIs is unlikely to be accomplished soon, and this study provides a framework for understanding how surgeons approach SSIs, and potential areas for further research or pragmatic guidance.

Different Surgeon, Different Closure: Lack of Consensus on Appropriate Closure Technique for Various Case Scenarios.

Background: Many techniques for closure of surgical incisions are available to the surgeon, but there is minimal guidance regarding which technique(s) should be utilized at the conclusion of surgery and under what circumstances. Hypothesis: Management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery lacks consensus and varies among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed on the management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery. Several case scenarios were provided to test the influences of operation type, intra-operative contamination, and hemodynamic stability on incision management (e.g., close fascia or skin, use of incision/wound vacuum-assisted closure [VAC] device). Responses by two-thirds of participants were required to achieve consensus. Data analysis by χ2 test and logistic regression, a = 0.05. Response heterogeneity was quantified by the Shannon index (SI). Results: Among 78 respondents, consensus was achieved for elective splenectomy (91% close skin/dry dressing). Open appendectomy and left colectomy/end-colostomy had the greatest heterogeneity (SI, 1.68 and 1.63, respectively). During trauma laparotomy, the majority used damage control for hemodynamic instability (53%-67%) but not for hemodynamically stable patients (0%-1.3%; p < 0.001). Additional consensus was achieved for close skin/dry dressing for hemodynamically stable trauma splenectomy patients (87%) and fascia open/wound VAC for hemodynamically unstable colon resection/anastomosis (67%). Fecal diversion for rectal injury and colon resection/anastomosis (both when hemodynamically stable) had high heterogeneity (SI, 1.56 and 1.48, respectively). In penetrating trauma, sentiment was for more use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with increased contamination in hemodynamically stable patients. Conclusions: Damage control was favored in hemodynamically unstable trauma patients, with use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with spillage after penetrating trauma. However, most scenarios did not achieve consensus. High variability of practices regarding incision management at the conclusion of surgery was confirmed. Prospective studies and evidence-based guidance are needed to guide decision making at end-operation.

Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Management of Surgical Site or Implant-Related Infections After Surgical Stabilization of Traumatic Rib or Sternal Fractures.

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) and surgical stabilization of sternal fractures (SSSF) involves open reduction and internal fixation of fractures with an implantable titanium plate to restore and maintain anatomic alignment. The presence of this foreign, non-absorbable material presents an opportunity for infection. Although surgical site infection (SSI) and implant infection rates after SSRF and SSSF are low, they present a challenging clinical entity. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and Chest Wall Injury Society's Publication Committee convened to develop recommendations for management of SSIs or implant-related infections after SSRF or SSSF. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database 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 who develop an SSI or an implant-related infection, there is insufficient evidence to suggest a single optimal management strategy. For patients with an SSI, systemic antibiotic therapy, local wound debridement, and vacuum-assisted closure have been used in isolation or combination. For patients with an implant-related infection, initial implant removal with or without systemic antibiotic therapy, systemic antibiotic therapy with local wound drainage, and systemic antibiotic therapy with local antibiotic therapy have been documented. For patients who do not undergo initial implant removal, 68% ultimately require implant removal to achieve source control. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence precludes the ability to recommend guidelines for the treatment of SSI or implant-related infection following SSRF or SSSF. Further studies should be performed to identify the optimal management strategy in this population.

Interpretation of the World Society of the Emergency Surgery/the Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery/the Surgical Infection Society-Europe/the World Surgical Infection Society/the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) is common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The principles of IAI management included early diagnosis, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using critical care resources, combined with an optimal surgical approach. In order to facilitate clinical management, establish a global standard and provide guidance for clinicians, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) worked together to complete an international multi-society document, which provided the evidence-based clinical pathways. Herein, we made a comprehensive interpretation for the clinical pathways combined with the latest domestic and international research developments, aiming to provide evidence for domestic doctors on the diagnosis and treatment of IAI, and ultimately benefit patients.

Traci L. Hedrick, MD, MSc, FACS, FASCRS.

Dr. Traci Hedrick grew up in a small town in West Virginia prior to attending the University of Kentucky, where she earned her BS in Human Studies summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She then attended the University of Kentucky School of Medicine, receiving her M.D. in 2002. While at Kentucky, she was the top student in her class, receiving the valedictorian award and special “Best of Clerkship” awards in Anatomy, Pathology, and Surgery. Her medical school accolades also include election to junior Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA), a named scholarship, and an award from the American Medical Women's Association. Dr. Hedrick began her residency in surgery at the University of Virginia in 2002, winning the Intern of the Year Award, the Academic Achievement Award for the third-year resident with the best academic and scholarly record, the Curtis Tribble Teaching Award in 2006, and a Mulholland Teaching Award in 2007 and 2009, her Chief year. Also, during her Chief year, she won the department's award for the resident who has most contributed to the education of the junior residents (by election by the residents) and then the prestigious Association of Women Surgeons Outstanding Resident Award. Along the way, Traci also garnered several awards for her research projects conducted during 2 years of research under the direction of Dr. Robert Sawyer. Besides numerous publications, she won the Surgical Infection Society Research Training Fellowship Award and completed the requirements for a Master of Clinical Research degree.

Omicron, Long-COVID, and the Safety of Elective Surgery for Adults and Children: Joint Guidance from the Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee of the Surgical Infection Society and the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services

Background: Active and recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections are associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery in adults. Current recommendations suggest delaying elective surgery in survivors for four to 12 weeks, depending on initial illness severity. Recently, the predominant causes of COVID-19 are the highly transmissible/less virulent Omicron variant/subvariants. Moreover, increased survivability of primary infections has engendered the long-COVID syndrome, with protean manifestations that may persist for months. Considering the more than 600,000,000 COVID-19 survivors, surgeons will likely be consulted by recovered patients seeking elective operations. Knowledge gaps of the aftermath of Omicron infections raise questions whether extant guidance for timing of surgery still applies to adults or should apply to the pediatric population. Methods: Scoping review of relevant English-language literature. Results: Most supporting data derive from early in the pandemic when the Alpha variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) predominated. The Omicron variant/subvariants generally cause milder infections with less organ dysfunction; many infections are asymptomatic, especially in children. Data are scant with respect to adult surgical outcomes after Omicron infection, and especially so for pediatric surgical outcomes at any stage of the pandemic. Conclusions: Numerous knowledge gaps persist with respect to the disease, the recovered pre-operative patient, the nature of the proposed procedure, and supporting data. For example, should the waiting period for all but urgent elective surgery be extended beyond 12 weeks, e.g., after serious/critical illness, or for patients with long-COVID and organ dysfunction? Conversely, can the waiting periods for asymptomatic patients or vaccinated patients be shortened? How shall children be risk-stratified, considering the distinctiveness of pediatric COVID-19 and the paucity of data? Forthcoming guidelines will hopefully answer these questions but may require ongoing modifications based on additional new data and the epidemiology of emerging strains.

Measuring Adherence to Antibiotic Use Guidelines in Managing Mandible Fractures

Due to variability in practice patterns when managing patients with facial fractures, the Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee (SIS) released guidelines in June 2020 concerning antibiotic use in the treatment of patients with facial fractures. The purpose of this study was to measure adherence to SIS guidelines among patients treated for isolated mandibular fractures and to identify factors associated with deviation from SIS guidelines. The authors designed and implemented a retrospective cohort study and enrolled a sample derived from the population of patients treated for isolated mandibular fractures at Harborview Medical Center (Seattle, WA) and University of Washington Medical Center-Montlake (Seattle, WA) from June 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome variable was adherence to SIS antibiotic guidelines (yes or no). Covariates were grouped into the following categories: demographic (age, gender), treatment (operative treatment, primary service, transfer status), and risk factor (Charlson Comorbidity Index, tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use other than marijuana, mandibular injury severity score). Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed to measure the association between adherence and the study variables. The level of statistical significance was set at a P-value ≤.05. The study sample was composed of 114 patients with a mean age of 41.8±19.0years and 72% were males. The frequency of adherence to SIS antibiotic protocol was 91.2%. Variables associated with deviation from SIS antibiotic protocol were operative treatment (P-value=.03 - relative risk (RR) not calculable), current drug use other than marijuana (RR=4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-12.8; P-value=.01), and transfer from an outside facility (RR=4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-12.8; P-value=.01). The findings of this study suggest that the SIS antibiotic guidelines in the management of isolated mandible fractures were translated well into practice at our institution as evidenced by the high level of compliance (>90%). To improve adherence, additional research is indicated to better understand how factors such as treatment choice, drug exposure, and transfer status adversely affect adherence to guidelines.

Surgical Infection Society Guidelines: 2022 Updated Guidelines for Antibiotic Use in Open Extremity Fractures.

Background: Open fractures, defined as fractures communicating with the environment through a skin wound, cause substantial morbidity after traumatic injury. Current evidence supports administration of prophylactic systemic antibiotic agents to patients with open extremity fractures to decrease infectious complications. Methods: The Therapeutic and Guidelines Committee of The Surgical Infection Society convened to revise guidelines for antibiotic use in open fractures. PubMed was queried for pertinent studies. Evaluation of the published evidence was performed using the GRADE framework. All committee members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: In type I or II open extremity fractures, we recommend against administration of extended-spectrum antibiotic coverage compared with gram-positive coverage alone to decrease infections complications, hospital length of stay or mortality. In type III open extremity fractures, we recommend antibiotic therapy for no more than 24 hrs after injury, in the absence of clinical signs of active infection, to decrease infectious complications, hospital length of stay or mortality, and we recommend against extended antimicrobial coverage beyond gram-positive organisms to decrease infectious complications, hospital length of stay or mortality. In type III open extremity fractures with associated bone loss, we recommend antibiotic therapy in addition to systemic therapy to decrease infectious complications. Conclusions: Although antibiotic agents remain a standard of care for infection prevention after open extremity fractures, our findings and surveys of clinical practice patterns clearly show that additional robust clinical trials are needed to provide stronger corroborating evidence.

Measuring Adherence to Antibiotic Use Guidelines in Managing Mandible Fractures

There is documented variability in the use of antibiotics in patients with isolated mandibular fractures in terms of dosing and frequency, which may be attributable to the complexity in assessing mandibular injury, including number of fractures, displacement, involvement of teeth and surrounding soft tissue, and impact on occlusion.1 To address disparate practice patterns in the management of patients with facial fractures, the Surgical Infection Society’s Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee (SIS) released guidelines in June 2020 concerning antibiotic use in the treatment of patients with facial fractures.

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.

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 Guidelines for Antibiotic Use in Patients Undergoing Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Disease.

Background: Manifestations of gallbladder disease range from intermittent abdominal pain (symptomatic cholelithiasis) to potentially life-threatening illness (gangrenous cholecystitis). Although surgical intervention to treat acute cholecystitis is well defined, the role of antibiotic administration before or after cholecystectomy to decrease morbidity or mortality is less clear. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee convened to develop guidelines for antibiotic use in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease to prevent surgical site infection, other infection, hospital length of stay, or mortality. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database were searched for relevant studies. Evaluation of the published evidence was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Using a process of iterative consensus, all authors voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: We recommend against routine use of peri-operative antibiotic agents in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We recommend use of peri-operative antibiotic agents for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. We recommend against use of post-operative antibiotic agents after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis. We recommend against use of post-operative antibiotic agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for mild or moderate acute cholecystitis. We recommend a maximum of four days of antibiotic agents, and perhaps a shorter duration in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for severe (Tokyo Guidelines grade III) cholecystitis. Conclusions: This guideline summarizes the current Surgical Infection Society recommendations for antibiotic use in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease.

Interpretation of acute abdomen in the immunocompromised patients: WSES/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST/GAIS guideline

World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), in conjunction with Surgical Infection Society Europe (SIS-E), World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS) developed guideline about the management of acute abdomen in immunocompromised patients, which was published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery (WJES) on August 9, 2021. The guidelines elaborate on the definition, classification, diagnosis and treatment of immunocompromised patients. In addition, based on evidence-based medicine, it provides guidance and suggestion on the management of specific acute abdominal infections in immunocompromised patients, common acute abdominal infections in transplanted patients, patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), as well as perioperative steroid management. An interpretation of the guideline was performed to accomplish a better understanding the current status and recommendations for the management of acute abdominal conditions in immunocompromised patients, and to make forward suggestions on its limitations.

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice.

Background: The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). Hypothesis: There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. Methods: A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Results: Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Conclusions: Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines.

Surgical Infection Society Guidelines for Total Abdominal Colectomy versus Diverting Loop Ileostomy with Antegrade Intra-Colonic Lavage for the Surgical Management of Severe or Fulminant, Non-Perforated Clostridioides difficile Colitis.

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can result in life-threatening illness requiring surgery. Surgical options for managing severe or fulminant, non-perforated C. difficile colitis include total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy or creation of a diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade vancomycin lavage. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee convened to develop guidelines for summarizing the current SIS recommendations for total abdominal colectomy versus diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade lavage for severe or fulminant, non-perforated C. difficile colitis. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were searched for pertinent studies. Severe infection was defined as laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection with leukocytosis (white blood cell count of ≥15,000 cells/mL) or elevated creatinine (serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dL). Fulminant infection was defined as laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection with hypotension or shock, ileus, or megacolon. Perforation was defined as complete disruption of the colon wall. Total abdominal colectomy was defined as resection of the ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon with end ileostomy. For the purpose of the guideline, the terms subtotal colectomy, total abdominal colectomy, and rectal-sparing total colectomy were used interchangeably. Diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade enema was defined as creation of both a diverting loop ileostomy with intra-operative colonic lavage and post-operative antegrade vancomycin unless otherwise specified. Evaluation of the published evidence was performed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Using a process of iterative consensus, all committee members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: We recommend that total abdominal colectomy be the procedure of choice for definitive therapy of severe or fulminant, non-perforated C. difficile colitis. In select patients, colon preservation using diverting loop ileostomy with intra-colonic vancomycin may be associated with higher rates of ostomy reversal and restoration of gastrointestinal continuity but may lead to development of recurrent C. difficile colitis. Conclusions: This guideline summarizes the current Surgical Infection Society recommendations regarding use of total abdominal colectomy versus diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade lavage for adults with severe or fulminant, non-perforated C. difficile infection.