Abstract
Background
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common morbidity in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, and the focus of previous studies has primarily been on incisional SSI. Most reports thus far have focused on open surgery rather than on laparoscopic colorectal surgery (Lap CR). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to identify the risk factors for incisional SSI in patients undergoing elective Lap CR.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the occurrence and risk factors of incisional SSI for elective Lap CR. From January 2008 to June 2018, 1825 consecutive patients with a preoperative diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent Lap CR were analyzed at a single institution.
Results
Incidence of incisional SSI was 3.3%. Postoperative hospital stay (days) was significantly longer in the incisional SSI group than in the non‐incisional SSI group (8 [6‐12] vs 10 [8‐19], P < 0.001). Incisional SSI were significantly associated with five operative factors: blood loss (g) (P < 0.014), midline wound length (mm) (P = 0.038), suture materials (P = 0.014), suture technique (interrupted vs continuous mass closure, P = 0.003), and organ/space SSI (P = 0.041). Multivariate analysis showed that continuous mass closure (odds ratio 0.290; 95% confidence interval 0.101‐0.831, P = 0.021) was the only factor independently associated with the incidence of incisional SSI.
Conclusions
Incidence of incisional SSI was comparable to that in previous reports. Continuous mass closure decreased the risk of incisional SSI in elective Lap CR.
Keywords: abdominal wound closure technique, colorectal (includes small bowel/appendix), laparoscopy, postoperative complication, surgical site infection
1. INTRODUCTION
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common morbidity in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. The National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNSI) system of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) introduced the concept of SSI in 1992.1 SSI are divided into incisional SSI and organ/space SSI; however, the focus of previous studies has primarily been on incisional SSI.2
Among surgical procedures, colorectal surgery is regarded as carrying a particularly high risk of SSI because of the significant bacterial load in the associated organ/space.3 Indeed, in open colorectal surgery, the incisional SSI rate reportedly ranges from 4.7% to 26%.4, 5, 6
The risk factors of incisional SSI in colorectal surgery can be classified into patient‐ and operation‐related factors. In general, the patient‐related factors are considered to play a critical role in incisional SSI, and many have been identified thus far;5, 7, 8, 9 however, most are difficult to manipulate.
Surgical techniques may be able to reduce the SSI rate, and ideal approaches have long been examined, including antimicrobial suture and methods of abdominal closure.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 However, these previous reports have focused on open colorectal surgery, and there are few reports of risk factors for incisional SSI with laparoscopic colorectal surgery (Lap CR). In one report that investigated such risk factors, the number of cases was as small as approximately 400.15, 16 Over the past two decades, with the widespread application of Lap CR, the incidence of incisional SSI has decreased (2.7%‐8.8%),16, 17 but incisional SSI associated with this technique remain a clinical problem to be solved.
Therefore, the aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the risk factors in patients undergoing elective Lap CR.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study design
The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Advisory Committee of Yokohama City University School of Medicine (B180400018). From January 2008 to June 2018, a total of 1890 patients who underwent elective Lap CR at Yokohama City University Medical Center were retrospectively collected. Of these, 60 cases were excluded from the analysis because of conversion to open surgery, and five were excluded because of pelvic exenteration. The remaining 1825 patients were analyzed in this retrospective study (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Outline of patient selection in the present study
2.2. Variables included in the analysis
All data were retrospectively collected. Patient‐related variables analyzed were age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), comorbid disease, smoking status, preoperative chemotherapy, pathological diagnosis, maximum tumor diameter, and tumor location. Surgery‐related variables were duration of operation, amount of blood loss, surgical procedure, transfusion, use of diverting stoma, wound length, wound suture material, wound suture technique, postoperative complications, organ/space SSI, and postoperative hospital stay.
2.3. Antibiotic prophylaxis
During the induction of anesthesia, one dose of prophylactic i.v. antibiotics (cefmetazole 1.0 g) was given, and an additional dose was given every 3 hours during surgery and 8 hours after surgery. In cases with impaired renal function, we prolonged the dosage interval. Oral antibiotics were not used in bowel preparation.
2.4. Operative approach
All operations were carried out or supervised by surgeons qualified under the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System of the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery.18
Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was carried out using five ports: a 12‐mm port in the umbilical region, 5‐mm ports in the upper‐right, left, and lower‐left quadrants, and a 12‐mm port in the lower‐right quadrant. A 12‐mm umbilical trocar was used as a camera port for a rigid scope. Central vessel ligation and colon or rectum mobilization were done laparoscopically. The specimen was extracted through the umbilical port, which was extended to approximately 2‐5 cm. To avoid contamination, a wound protector was used in each case.
The skin incision was carried out with a scalpel, and the s.c. fat and linea alba were dissected by electrical cautery. Wound closure was done for the abdominal fascia using 4‐0 PDS (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA) subcuticular sutures for the skin. Prophylactic intraoperative wound irrigation with 1000 mL saline was routinely carried out before skin closure.
Suture materials used for fascia closure have changed over time as follows: April 2008‐April 2009, polyglactin 910 (Vicryl [Ethicon] JB 725, needle: CTX‐B 48 mm 1/2 circle); May 2009‐September 2012, triclosan‐coated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl plus [Ethicon] VCPB725D, needle: 48 mm 1/2 circle); October 2012‐June 2018, triclosan‐coated polydioxanone (PDS plus [Ethicon] PDP 776D, needle: 48 mm 1/2 circle).
Mass closure was carried out for all abdominal fascia closures. From 2008 to 2016, interrupted sutures were used and, from 2017, continuous closure was carried out consistently (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
(A) illustrate interrupted suture (from 2008 to 2016) and (B) continuous closure (from 2017), respectively. Mass closure was carried out for all abdominal fascia closures
2.5. Diagnosis of incisional SSI
All patients were monitored for postoperative incisional SSI, including superficial and deep SSI. Surgeons carried out a physical examination every day from the operating day until discharge. After hospital discharge, all patients were followed at the hospital as outpatients until day 30. Diagnosis of SSI was based on the definitions of the CDC guidelines: (i) purulent discharge with or without laboratory confirmation from the superficial incision; (ii) organisms isolated from an aseptically obtained culture of fluid or tissue from the superficial incision; (iii) at least one of the indicated signs or symptoms of infection (pain or tenderness, localized swelling, redness, or heat and superficial incision are deliberately opened by surgeon, unless the incision is culture‐negative); and (iv) a diagnosis of superficial SSI by the surgeon or attending physician.1 Using these definitions, incisional SSI were diagnosed in cases of such findings occurring within 30 days after surgery.
2.6. Statistical analyses
Primary outcome of the study was to evaluate the risk factors for incisional SSI at the midline wound. Quantitative data are expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). We used the Mann‐Whitney U test to compare the median and IQR of continuous variables (such as age) and the χ2 test or Fisher's exact probability test to compare the proportion of categorical variables (such as gender). P value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant.
Following the univariate analysis, those variables with a P value less than 0.1 were selected for the multivariate analysis using the logistic regression method.
All statistical analyses were carried out with EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). More precisely, it is a modified version of R Commander designed to add statistical functions frequently used in biostatistics.
3. RESULTS
A total of 1825 patients were analyzed (Figure 1). All surgical wounds were classified as clean‐contaminated (bowel was opened without spilling contents; class 2). Incisional SSI was detected in 61 out of the 1825 patients (3.34%).
3.1. Findings of the univariate analysis
In the univariate analysis, patients were divided into those with or without incisional SSI and compared. Table 1 shows comparisons of patient‐related characteristics. None of the variables relating to patient‐related factors was significantly associated with the development of incisional SSI. Table 2 shows comparisons of perioperative/operative‐related characteristics. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the incisional SSI group than in the non‐incisional SSI group. In addition, incisional SSI was also significantly associated with five operative factors: blood loss (g) (P < 0.001), midline wound length (mm) (P = 0.038), suture materials (P = 0.014), suture technique (interrupted vs continuous mass closure, P = 0.003), and organ/space SSI (P = 0.041).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics and univariate analysis of incisional SSI
| Variable | Incisional SSI (−) n = 1764 | Incisional SSI (+) n = 61 | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % or IQR | n | % or IQR | ||
| Age, y | 68 | 60‐75 | 70 | 64‐76 | 0.309 |
| Gender, n (%) | |||||
| Male | 1022 | 57.9 | 37 | 60.7 | 0.695 |
| Female | 742 | 42.1 | 24 | 39.3 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.6 | 20.4‐24.7 | 23.1 | 21.7‐24.8 | 0.087 |
| PNI | 51 | 47.8‐54.7 | 51 | 45.9‐55.3 | 0.430 |
| ASA class | |||||
| I | 314 | 17.8 | 7 | 11.5 | 0.431 |
| II | 1330 | 75.4 | 49 | 80.3 | |
| III | 120 | 6.8 | 5 | 8.2 | |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 301 | 17.1 | 10 | 16.4 | 1.000 |
| Cardiac disease, n (%) | 211 | 12.0 | 9 | 14.8 | 0.546 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 756 | 42.9 | 29 | 47.5 | 0.512 |
| Current or past smoker, n (%) | 789 | 44.7 | 34 | 55.7 | 0.120 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, n (%) | 116 | 6.6 | 5 | 8.2 | 0.597 |
| Histological diagnosis | |||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 1706 | 96.7 | 58 | 95.1 | 0.150 |
| Neuroendocrine tumor | 39 | 2.2 | 1 | 1.6 | |
| Mucinous cystadenoma | 9 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.6 | |
| Malignant melanoma | 4 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Other | 6 | 0.3 | 1 | 1.6 | |
| Tumor site | |||||
| Colon | 1232 | 69.8 | 41 | 67.2 | 0.672 |
| Rectum | 532 | 30.2 | 20 | 32.8 | |
| Tumor size, mm (IQR) | 32 | 20‐48 | 35 | 22‐51 | 0.430 |
Variables are n (%) or mean (interquartile range: IQR), unless otherwise indicated.
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; SSI, surgical site infection.
Table 2.
Surgical outcomes and univariate analysis of incisional SSI
| Variable | Incisional SSI (−) n = 1764 | Incisional SSI (+) n = 61 | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % or IQR | n | % or IQR | ||
| Operative procedure | |||||
| Colectomy | 1023 | 58.0 | 36 | 59.0 | 0.196 |
| Anterior resection | 607 | 34.4 | 17 | 27.9 | |
| Hartmann | 16 | 0.9 | 1 | 1.6 | |
| ISR | 59 | 3.3 | 2 | 3.3 | |
| APR | 59 | 3.3 | 5 | 8.2 | |
| Operative time, min | 181 | 151‐225 | 199 | 152‐240 | 0.163 |
| Blood loss, g | 10 | 5.0‐40 | 26 | 10‐68 | <0.001 |
| Transfusion | |||||
| Absent | 1748 | 99.1 | 59 | 96.7 | 0.236 |
| Present | 16 | 0.9 | 2 | 3.3 | |
| Stoma creation | |||||
| Absent | 1362 | 77.2 | 45 | 73.8 | 0.636 |
| Present | 402 | 22.8 | 16 | 26.2 | |
| Midline wound length, mm | 45 | 40‐50 | 50 | 40‐55 | 0.038 |
| Wound suture material | |||||
| Vicryl | 95 | 5.4 | 3 | 4.9 | 0.014 |
| Vicryl Plus | 385 | 21.8 | 23 | 37.7 | |
| PDS Plus | 1284 | 72.8 | 35 | 57.4 | |
| Wound suture technique | |||||
| Interrupted mass closure | 1347 | 76.4 | 57 | 93.4 | 0.003 |
| Continuous mass closure | 417 | 23.6 | 4 | 6.6 | |
| Postoperative complications (CD class ≥3a) | |||||
| Absent | 1646 | 93.3 | 53 | 86.9 | 0.091 |
| Present | 118 | 6.7 | 8 | 13.1 | |
| Organ/space SSI | |||||
| Absent | 1620 | 91.8 | 51 | 83.6 | 0.041 |
| Present | 144 | 8.2 | 10 | 16.4 | |
| Postoperative hospital stay, days | 8 | 6‐12 | 10 | 8‐19 | <0.001 |
Variables are n (%) or mean (interquartile range: IQR), unless otherwise indicated.
APR, anterior peritoneal resection; CD, Clavien‐Dindo; ISR, intersphincteric resection; SSI, surgical site infection.
3.2. Findings of the multivariate analysis
Table 3 shows the results of the multivariate analysis. In this analysis, only continuous mass closure was significantly associated with a decreased risk of incisional SSI (odds ratio 0.290; 95% confidence interval 0.101‐0.831, P = 0.021).
Table 3.
Multivariate analysis of incisional SSI
| Variable | ORa | 95% CI | P a |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMI, kg/m2 | 1.080 | 0.997‐1.160 | 0.058 |
| Blood loss, g | 1.000 | 0.998‐1.000 | 0.894 |
| Midline wound length, mm | 1.010 | 0.986‐1.030 | 0.555 |
| PDS plus | 0.587 | 0.335‐1.030 | 0.063 |
| Continuous mass closure | 0.290 | 0.101‐0.831 | 0.021 |
| Postoperative complications (CD class ≥3a) | 1.250 | 0.449‐3.450 | 0.673 |
| Organ/space SSI | 1.870 | 0.775‐4.520 | 0.163 |
BMI, body mass index; CD, Clavien‐Dindo; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SSI, surgical site infection.
OR and P value for primary analysis (logistic regression).
4. DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the risk factors of incisional SSI in elective Lap CR. We showed that no patient‐related factors were associated with such SSI and that continuous mass closure significantly decreased their rate in our population.
Incidence of incisional SSI is multifactorial, and risk factors can be divided broadly into patient‐ and operation‐related factors. Patient‐related factors have been considered to play a critical role in the occurrence of incisional SSI, and various risk factors have been identified, including obesity, malnutrition, smoking, and diabetes mellitus.5, 7, 8, 9 However, in our study, no patient‐related factors were associated with incisional SSI.
Suture materials have been recognized as a potential breeding ground for infection. Sutures coated with antimicrobial compounds, such as triclosan, might reduce the rate of incisional SSI.19, 20 However, in a recent randomized control study10 and meta‐analysis,21 abdominal wall closure with triclosan‐coated sutures did not reduce the incidence of incisional SSI. Similarly, in the present study, triclosan‐coated sutures were also not associated with incisional SSI (Table 2). Although patients in the Vicryl Plus group had a slightly higher SSI rate (5.7%: 23/403), this was not higher compared with previous reports.16, 17, 22 Seiler et al23 reported that there was no difference between interrupted Vicryl and continuous PDS in terms of the incidence of SSI, but, to our knowledge, there were no reports directly comparing Vicryl Plus and PDS Plus. The concentration of triclosan in Vicryl Plus is lower than that in PDS Plus and does not provide antibacterial protection against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, so these differences might have resulted in the higher SSI rate in the Vicryl Plus group compared with the PDS Plus group.
The method of closing the abdominal wall has been considered a critical aspect of incisional SSI. One such method is mass closure, which involves the closure of all layers of the abdominal wall (except for the skin) as a single structure; this technique is carried out in either a continuous or an interrupted method and significantly reduces the incidence of incisional hernia.24, 25 Therefore, in western countries, continuous mass closure has been considered safe and effective. However, in Japan, interrupted closure has been widely leveraged conventionally. In our department, based on this evidence,24, 25 continuous mass closure has been carried out consistently since 2017. Previous studies have attempted to determine the incidence of incisional hernia, and the relationship with incisional SSI has been examined as a secondary endpoint. In those studies, the incisional SSI rate was not significantly different between continuous and interrupted closure.13, 26 Nevertheless, until now, no studies have investigated the relationship between the incisional SSI rate and the closure method in cases of Lap CR. In our study, continuous mass closure significantly decreased incisional SSI, most likely for the following reasons: knots provide space in which bacteria can become enmeshed and are the most common site of sinus formation,27 so continuous sutures with few knots might help reduce the risk of incisional SSI in Lap CR (Figure 2).
Several limitations associated with the present study warrant mention. First, this was a retrospective analysis at a single department. Therefore, statistical analyses between the risk factors and incisional SSI were unable to determine any cause‐and‐effect relationship. Second, as SSI surveillance was judged independently by each surgeon, the standards may not have been consistent. Third, there are other known risk factors that were not evaluated but that might predispose a patient to incisional SSI, including smoking status,28 weight loss,29 intraoperative hypotension and hypoxemia,30 and postoperative glucose control.31 Moreover, the incidence of incisional hernia is an important endpoint comparing closure methods, but the aim of the present study was to evaluate risk factors of incisional SSI only and we did not examine this. In another study, we are now investigating its rate in Lap CR.
However, despite these limitations, this remains the first report of incisional SSI in a large number of Lap CR cases. Further prospective investigations will be needed to determine the risk factors of incisional SSI in elective Lap CR and the ideal closure method.
5. CONCLUSION
Incidence of incisional SSI was comparable to that in previous reports. Continuous mass closure of the midline fascia decreased the risk of incisional SSI in elective Lap CR.
DISCLOSURE
Authors declare no conflicts of interest for this article.
Chida K, Watanabe J, Suwa Y, et al. Risk factors for incisional surgical site infection after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019;3:202–208. 10.1002/ags3.12229
REFERENCES
- 1. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori GT. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13(10):606–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Endo S, Tsujinaka T, Fujitani K, et al. Risk factors for superficial incisional surgical site infection after gastrectomy: analysis of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing skin closure methods. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19(2):639–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System . National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):470–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST, et al. Wound infection after elective colorectal resection. Ann Surg. 2004;239(5):599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Blumetti J, Luu M, Sarosi G, et al. Surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: do risk factors vary depending on the type of infection considered? Surgery. 2007;142(5):704–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Morikane K, Honda H, Yamagishi T, Suzuki S, Aminaka M. Factors associated with surgical site infection in colorectal surgery: the Japan nosocomial infections surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):660–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hennessey DB, Burke JP, Ni‐Dhonochu T, Shields C, Winter DC, Mealy K. Preoperative hypoalbuminemia is an independent risk factor for the development of surgical site infection following gastrointestinal surgery: a multi‐institutional study. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Nolan MB, Martin DP, Thompson R, Schroeder DR, Hanson AC, Warner DO. Association between smoking status, preoperative exhaled carbon monoxide levels, and postoperative surgical site infection in patients undergoing elective surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(5):476–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Latham R, Lancaster AD, Covington JF, Pirolo JS, Thomas CS. The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical‐site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(10):607–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Diener MK, Knebel P, Kieser M, et al. Effectiveness of triclosan‐coated PDS Plus versus uncoated PDS II sutures for prevention of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure: the randomised controlled PROUD trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):142–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Edmiston CE, Daoud FC, Leaper D. Is there an evidence‐based argument for embracing an antimicrobial (triclosan)‐coated suture technology to reduce the risk for surgical‐site infections? A meta‐analysis. Surgery. 2013;154(1):89–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. de Jonge S, Atema J, Solomkin J, Boermeester M. Meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis of triclosan‐coated sutures for the prevention of surgical‐site infection. BJS. 2017;104(2):e118–e133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Büchler MW, Iler C. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Patel SV, Paskar DD, Nelson RL, Vedula SS, Steele SR. Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11(11):CD005661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Drosdeck J, Harzman A, Suzo A, Arnold M, Abdel‐Rasoul M, Husain S. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(12):4574–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Poon JT, Law W‐L, Wong IW, et al. Impact of laparoscopic colorectal resection on surgical site infection. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Hinoi T, Kawaguchi Y, Hattori M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a multicenter matched case‐control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(6):2040–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Mori T, Kimura T, Kitajima M. Skill accreditation system for laparoscopic gastroenterologic surgeons in Japan. Minim Invasiv Ther. 2010;19(1):18–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Justinger C, Moussavian M, Schlueter C, Kopp B, Kollmar O, Schilling M. Antibiotic coating of abdominal closure sutures and wound infection. Surgery. 2009;145(3):330–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Chang W, Nivasa S, MacCormick AD, Hill AG. Gentamicin‐collagen implants to reduce surgical site infection: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ichida K, Noda H, Kikugawa R, et al. Effect of triclosan‐coated sutures on the incidence of surgical site infection after abdominal wall closure in gastroenterological surgery: a double‐blind, randomized controlled trial in a single center. Surgery. 2018;164(1):91–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Braga M, Vignali A, Gianotti L, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short‐term outcome. Ann Surg. 2002;236(6):759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Seiler C, Bruckner T, Diener MK, et al. Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg. 2009;249(4):576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Rucinski J, Margolis M, Panagopoulos G, Wise L. Closure of the abdominal midline fascia: meta‐analysis delineates the optimal technique. Am Surg. 2001;67(5):421–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence‐based review of the literature. Curr Surg. 2005;62(2):220–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Fischer L, Knaebel HP, Golcher H, et al. To whom do the results of the multicenter, randomized, controlled INSECT trial (ISRCTN 24023541) apply? ‐ assessment of external validity. BMC Surg. 2012;12(1):2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Cutler EC, Dunphy JE. The use of silk in infected wounds. N Engl J Med. 1941;224(3):101–7. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Sorensen L, Karlsmark T, Gottrup F. Abstinence from smoking reduces incisional wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Malone DL, Genuit T, Tracy JK, Gannon C, Napolitano LM. Surgical site infections: reanalysis of risk factors. J Surg Res. 2002;103(1):89–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical‐wound infection and shorten hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(19):1209–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Chong T, Sawyer R. Update on the epidemiology and prevention of surgical site infections. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2002;4(6):484–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]