Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Feb 17;18(2):e0281838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281838

Association between the proportion of laparoscopic approaches for digestive surgeries and the incidence of consequent surgical site infections, 2009–2019: A retrospective observational study based on national surveillance data in Japan

Toshiki Kajihara 1,*, Koji Yahara 1, Aki Hirabayashi 1, Yumiko Hosaka 1, Norikazu Kitamura 1, Motoyuki Sugai 1, Keigo Shibayama 2
Editor: Takehiko Hanaki3
PMCID: PMC9937488  PMID: 36800364

Abstract

Background

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most common healthcare-associated infections. Laparoscopy is increasingly being used in various surgical procedures. However, no study has examined the association between the proportion of laparoscopic procedures and the incidence of SSIs in digestive surgery using nationwide surveillance data.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated national SSI surveillance data from the Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance between 2009 and 2019. The annual trend of the SSI rate and the proportion of laparoscopic procedures were assessed, focusing on five major digestive surgeries. This was based on data from 109,544 (appendix surgery), 206,459 (gallbladder surgery), 60,225 (small bowel surgery), 363,677 (colon surgery), and 134,695 (rectal surgery) procedures. The effect of a 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures on the reduction of the SSI rate was estimated using mixed-effect logistic regression.

Findings

The average SSI rate of the five digestive surgeries decreased from 11.8% in 2009 to 8.1% in 2019. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures in each of the five digestive surgeries increased continuously (p<0.001). The SSI rate for laparoscopic procedures was always lower than that for open procedures. The results were consistent between all and core hospitals participating in the surveillance. The odds ratios of the 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures for five digestive surgeries were always <0.950 (p<0.001).

Conclusion

An increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures was associated with a reduction in the SSI rate in digestive surgeries.

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most frequent healthcare-associated infections worldwide [1]. SSIs are also associated with increased morbidity, in-hospital mortality, and prolonged hospitalization. On a per-case basis, surgical site infections amount to $20,785 (95% CI: $18,902–$22,667) [2]. The SSI rate varies from 1% to >20% for each surgical procedure. The SSI rate of digestive surgeries is higher than that of other surgeries because most digestive surgeries include intestinal manipulation [3, 4]. The associated SSI rates are as high as 14–25% in colon surgery [3, 4].

Laparoscopic techniques have been increasingly used in digestive surgeries, leading to fewer postoperative complications. Laparoscopic procedures are minimally invasive. In a systematic review, Buia et al. showed that the advantage of the procedure was minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery [5]. It was based on another systematic review that pain intensity on VAS scale was reduced on day one and wound infections were decreased in laparoscopic procedures for suspected appendicitis [6]. Laparoscopic procedures accelerated the recovery after colon surgery by decreasing pain and duration of hospital stay [7]. van der Pas et al. reported that patients in the laparoscopic colectomy group lost less blood, bowel function returned sooner, and hospital stay was shorter than those in the open surgery group in a randomised, phase 3 trial [8]. Laparoscopy has been shown to be associated with a lower risk of SSI [3, 4, 9]. The benefit of the laparoscopic technique compared to the open procedure with respect to SSI has been reported in digestive surgery, especially in colon surgery: Caroff et al. reported that the incidence of SSIs in laparoscopic and open procedures was 4.1% and 7.9%, respectively, in a cohort study including 229,726 cases [10]. Athanasiou et al. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of appendectomy with complicated appendicitis; they found that laparoscopic procedures decreased the incidence of SSI compared to open procedures (odds ratio 0.30) [11]. Recently, Kayano et al. showed the usefulness of the laparoscopic technique in small bowel surgery: the SSI rate in laparoscopic procedures was 3.8% and that in open procedures was 26.9% in a retrospective study including 105 cases in Japan [12].

However, no study has examined how the proportion of laparoscopic procedures in each type of digestive surgery is associated with the reduction of the incidence of SSI using nationwide surveillance data. We utilized SSI surveillance data collected in a national surveillance program, the Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (JANIS), involving hundreds of participating facilities. This retrospective study aimed to investigate how the spread of laparoscopic procedures is associated with the reduction of the incidence of SSI for five digestive surgeries, using Japanese national surveillance data from 2009 to 2019.

Materials and methods

Data preparation

The JANIS SSI section is one of the largest voluntary SSI surveillance systems [13]. It was established in 2002. The program was developed according to the principles of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system known as the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). The SSI surveillance in JANIS is conducted using the definition of the US National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS), with some modifications. It is comparable to other international SSI surveillances, such as the OP-KISS of Germany [14] and the National Healthcare Safety Network of the United States of America [15]. Surgeons in hospitals performed procedures and diagnosed SSI cases and reported the data to JANIS according to NHSN Operative Procedure Categories using ICD-9-CM code (https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/section/master/surgicaltechniquecode_ver2.1_20121220.xls). More hospitals progressively joined the JANIS SSI section, and the program included 785 hospitals in 2019. These included 188 of 408 (46.1%) hospitals with over 500 beds, 464 of 2,174 (21.3%) hospitals with 200–499 beds and 133 of 5790 (2.3%) hospitals with less than 200 beds. Most patients were followed up at outpatient clinics in their hospitals in Japan. The surgeon is usually responsible for the course of procedures in Japan. This is because JANIS collects the data from hospitals. The surgeons and/or infection control nurses in the hospitals validated the data and submitted the data every six months. A total of 1,564,438 procedures were submitted to the JANIS SSI section between 2009 and 2019. The raw data were tabulated for each hospital participating in the surveillance for the following 18 surgeries using an in-house Perl script, and the aggregated data are available at https://github.com/bioprojects/laparoscopy_and_SSIs. Incidence rates of SSIs were calculated following 18 surgeries (appendix surgery (APPY), breast surgery, cardiac surgery, coronary artery bypass graft with both chest and donor site incision, gallbladder surgery (CHOL), colon surgery (COLO), craniotomy, open reduction of fracture, herniorraphy, hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, laminectomy, kidney surgery, prostate surgery, rectal surgery (REC), small bowel surgery (SB), thoracic surgery and exploratory surgery). Bile duct, liver, or pancreatic surgery and gastric surgery were excluded because the aggregation method changed in 2012. Definition of SSIs including superficial incisional, deep incisional and organ/space SSI was based on the guideline of CDC’s recommendations for prevention of SSIs [16].

We conducted analyses of data from either “all participating hospitals” or “core participating hospitals” (Table 1). The former included all hospitals participating in each year. In total, the numbers of participating hospitals for the five digestive surgeries were 395 (APPY), 424 (CHOL), 390 (SB), 628 (COLO) and 569 (REC) in 2019. Core participating hospitals included all hospitals consistently participating from 2009 to 2019. In total, the numbers of the core participating hospitals were 69 (APPY), 78 (CHOL), 72 (SB), 141 (COLO) and 120 (REC).

Table 1. Characteristics of five digestive surgeries.

Appendix surgery (APPY) Gallbladder surgery (CHOL) Small bowel surgery (SB) Colon surgery (COLO) Rectal surgery (REC)
All participating hospitals
No. of participating hospital in 2019 395 424 390 628 569
No. of procedures between 2009 and 2019 109,544 206,459 60,225 363,677 134,695
No. of SSI between 2009 and 2019 5,630 6,178 8,411 43,045 19,806
No. of laparoscopic procedure between 2009 and 2019 66,246 165,921 9,068 160,864 72,701
The rate of SSI of laparoscopic procedures, % 4.19 1.91 8.00 7.27 11.3
The rate of SSI of open procedures, % 6.60 7.42 15.0 15.5 18.8
Core participating hospitals
No. of participating hospital 69 78 72 141 120
No. of procedures between 2009 and 2019 33,961 61,913 20,874 134,158 48,358
Average no. of procedures of each year, n (±SD) 3087 (±85) 5628 (±485) 1898 (±87) 12196 (±1005) 4396 (±241)
No. of SSI between 2009 and 2019 1,941 2,005 2,989 16,481 7,435
No. of laparoscopic procedure between 2009 and 2019 17,000 47,702 2,907 58,015 25,558
The rate of SSI of laparoscopic procedures, % 4.33 2.03 8.29 7.77 11.5
The rate of SSI of open procedures, % 7.10 7.29 15.3 15.7 19.7
The type of SSI in laparoscopic procedures in 2019, n, (%) (superficial/ deep/ organ, space) 53/5/27 (62.4/5.9/31.8) 71/3/16 (78.9/3.3/17.8) 17/2/11 (56.7/6.7/36.7) 299/25/134 (65.3/5.5/29.3) 131/29/215 (34.9/7.7/57.3)
The type of SSI in open procedures in 2019, n, (%) (superficial/ deep/ organ, space) 23/4/14 (56.1/9.8/34.1) 49/4/24 (63.6/5.2/31.2) 121/19/48 (64.4/10.1/25.5) 424/79/172 (62.8/11.7/25.5) 424/79/172 (62.8/11.7/25.5)

All participating hospitals included all hospitals participating in each year

Core participating hospitals included all hospitals participating in all years from 2009 to 2019

The SSI rates for all surgeries, for the five digestive surgeries, and for the other surgeries other than the five digestive surgeries for all and for the core participating hospitals were calculated for each year from 2009 to 2019. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for the five digestive surgeries were calculated for each year from 2009 to 2019.

The proportion of SSIs for the five digestive laparoscopic and open surgeries were calculated from 2009 to 2019.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by Pearson’s χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test when the expected count in any category was >5, Continuous non-normally distributed variables were analyzed by the Mann–Whitney U-test. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to test whether there was a trend of the proportion of SSIs and laparoscopic surgeries across years. The effect of a 10% increase in the laparoscopic rate on the SSI rate was estimated using mixed-effect logistic regression analysis implemented in lme4 package [17]. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.

Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.0.3.

Ethical considerations

Patient identifiers were de-identified in each hospital before data were submitted to JANIS. The anonymous data stored in the JANIS database were exported and analyzed, following approval from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (approval number 1007–6), according to Article 32 of the Statistics Act.

Results

The incidence of SSI among all participating hospitals

Fig 1 shows the average SSI rates for all surgeries, five digestive surgeries, and non-digestive surgeries (blue, orange, and green, respectively) from 2009 to 2019. The SSI rates for each year of surgery are listed in S1 Table. The average SSI rate for all surgeries among all participating hospitals for each year decreased significantly from 5.3% in 2009 to 3.5% in 2019 (p<0.001). The average SSI rate of the five digestive surgeries also decreased significantly from 11.8% to 8.1% (p<0.001), and the average SSI rate for the other surgeries decreased from 2.9% to 2.0% (p<0.001, Fig 1a).

Fig 1. Proportion of surgical site infection for the five digestive surgeries and other surgeries.

Fig 1

a) The proportion of surgical site infection in all participating hospitals. b) The proportion of surgical site infection in the core participating hospitals. The blue line shows the rate of surgical site infection for all types of surgeries. The orange line shows the rate of surgical site infection for five digestive surgeries (appendix surgery (APPY), gallbladder surgery (CHOL), colon surgery (COLO), small bowel surgery (SB), and rectal surgery (REC)). The green line shows the rate of surgical site infection for all except the five digestive surgeries. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

The incidence of SSI among core participating hospitals

In comparison, the average SSI rate of the core participating hospitals decreased significantly from 5.3% in 2009 to 3.3% in 2019 (p<0.0001, Fig 1b). The average SSI rate for the five digestive surgeries decreased significantly from 12.5% to 8.1% (p<0.0001), and the average SSI rate for all other surgeries decreased from 2.5% to 1.4% (p<0.0001). Overall, the results of the core hospitals were similar to those of all hospitals participating in the surveillance.

Proportion of digestive surgeries using laparoscopic procedures

The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for each of the five digestive surgeries is shown in Fig 2. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for CHOL in all participating hospitals was the highest, increasing from 69.1% in 2009 to 84.4% in 2019 (p<0.001, Fig 2a). The proportion of laparoscopic procedures of SB was the lowest, increasing from 4.85% to 20.1% (p<0.001, Fig 2a). The proportion of laparoscopic procedures performed for all other surgeries also significantly increased (p<0.0001, Fig 2a). Similar results were obtained for the core participating hospitals. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for CHOL was the highest, increasing from 68.9% in 2009 to 82.3% in 2019 (p<0.0001, Fig 2b). The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for SB was the lowest: it increased from 5.38% to 21.4% (p<0.0001, Fig 2b). The proportion of laparoscopic procedures for REC in the core participating hospitals was only 3% higher than that in all participating hospitals (Fig 2a and 2b).

Fig 2. Proportion of laparoscopic procedures for each of the five digestive surgeries.

Fig 2

a) Proportions of laparoscopic procedures for the five digestive surgeries in all participating hospitals. b) Proportions of laparoscopic procedures for the five digestive surgeries in the core participating hospitals The blue line indicates the rates for APPY. The orange line shows the rates of laparoscopic procedures performed for CHOL. The grey line shows the rates for SB. The yellow line shows the rates for COLO. The green line shows the rates for REC.

Differences in the rates of SSI between laparoscopic and open procedures for each of the five digestive surgeries

The laparoscopic and open SSI rates for the five digestive surgeries for all and core participating hospitals are shown in Fig 3. The proportion of SSI for laparoscopic procedures for all and core participating hospitals was significantly lower than that for open procedures for the five digestive surgeries in all years from 2009 to 2019 (all five digestive surgeries: p<0.001). The average proportion of SSI for APPY for all participating hospitals was 4.3% for laparoscopic procedures from 2009 to 2019 and that for open procedures was 6.6%. The average proportion of SSI for CHOL for all participating hospitals was 1.9% for laparoscopic procedures, and that for open procedures was 7.5%. The average proportion of SSI for COLO for all participating hospitals was 7.5% for laparoscopic procedures, and that for open procedures was 15.7%. The average proportion of SSI for REC for all participating hospitals was 11.3% for laparoscopic procedures and 18.8% for open procedures. The average proportion of SSIs for SB for all participating hospitals was 7.9% for laparoscopic procedures, and that for open procedures was 15.2%. The proportion of SSIs for the core participating hospitals was almost the same as that for all participating hospitals (all five digestive surgeries: p<0.001).

Fig 3. Proportion of surgical site infection for each of the five digestive surgeries stratified by laparoscopic and other procedures, as well as the core and all hospitals.

Fig 3

The blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in all participating hospitals. The light blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in all participating hospitals. The light orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in the core participating hospitals.

Contributions of laparoscopic procedures to the SSI rate

The odds ratios for the SSI rate when the proportion of laparoscopic procedures increased by 10%, calculated from the data of the core participating hospitals, is shown in Table 2. The odds ratios for APPY, CHOL, SB, COLO, and REC were 0.948 (95% CI 0.931–0.965, p<0.001), 0.931 (95% CI 0.896–0.968, p<0.001), 0.934 (95% CI 0.901–0.969, p<0.001), 0.912 (95% CI 0.902–0.921, p<0.001), and 0.938 (95% CI 0.927–0.949, p<0.001), respectively. In each of the five digestive surgeries, an increase in the rate of laparoscopic procedures was significantly associated with a decrease in the SSI rate.

Table 2. Odds ratio of the 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures for the surgical site infection rates.

Surgical procedure Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval p-value
Appendix surgery 0.948 0.931 0.965 p<0.001
Gallbladder surgery 0.931 0.896 0.968 p<0.001
Small bowel surgery 0.934 0.901 0.969 p<0.001
Colon surgery 0.912 0.902 0.921 p<0.001
Rectal surgery 0.938 0.927 0.949 p<0.001

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the impact of laparoscopic procedures in digestive surgeries on SSI reduction. We showed that the SSI rate continued to decline from 2009 to 2019 in all surgeries. The proportion of SSI was higher in the five digestive surgeries than in the others in each year, whereas the extent of the decrease in the SSI rate was larger in the five digestive surgeries than in the others. This study provided quantitative evidence that an increase in laparoscopic procedures is associated with a reduction in the SSI rate in digestive surgeries.

Our comparison of laparoscopic and open procedures over the 11-year period revealed that the SSI rate among laparoscopic procedures was significantly lower than that among open procedures, irrespective of the type of digestive surgery. The continuous increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures in each of the five digestive surgeries is likely to be a major factor underlying the decrease in the SSI rates for digestive surgeries. Laparoscopic procedures have been introduced because they are minimally invasive and are thus beneficial to patients. Kagawa et al. reported an increase in the number of laparoscopic procedures among colon surgeries from 2003 to 2015 [18]. However, prior to our study, there had been no report of annual trends in the proportions of laparoscopic procedures for the other four digestive surgeries.

Regarding REC, the percentage of superficial and deep incisional infections in laparoscopic procedures in 2019 was lower than that of open procedures (34.9, 7.7% vs 62.8, 11.7%). This showed that the SSIs were not related to the part of stoma. There was no difference between laparoscopic and open procedures in the percentage of type of SSIs of the other four surgeries.

Regarding SB, the proportion of laparoscopic procedures increased significantly from 5% in 2009 to 20% in 2019, but it was still much lower than that of the other four digestive surgeries. This likely reflects the difficulty in obtaining a definitive diagnosis in advance. On the contrary, the proportion of SSIs of upper gastrointestinal surgeries was variable (S1 Fig). Gastric surgeries were divided into total gastrectomy (GAST-T), Distal gastrectomy (GAST-D) and other gastric surgeries (GAST-O) in 2012. GAST-D and GAST-O showed a similar trend of increase in laparoscopic procedures associated with decrease in SSI rate, compared to the five digestive surgeries (odds ratio of the 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures for the surgical site infection rates was 0.941 [95% CI: 0.914–0.968, p<0.001] and 0.947 [95%CI: 0.918–0.977, p<0.001], respectively). On the other hand, GAST-T and esophageal surgeries (ESOP) did not show the trend (p-value = 0.606 and 0.614). The number of procedures of GAST-T was continuously decreasing from 2,798 in 2012 to 1,570 in 2019. The number of laparoscopic procedures of GAST-T was also decreasing from 1,182 in 2012 to 704 in 2019. It was because of the development of the technique of gastrointestinal endoscopy, which led to detection and treatment of gastric diseases earlier. With respect to ESOP, the number of procedures of ESOP in 13 of 23 core participating hospitals was under 10 in 2019. Markar et al. reported that the outcome of esophageal surgeries in high surgical volume hospitals was better than that in low surgical volume hospitals, which suggests that surgeons’ experience was required to reduce post-operative problems [19]. Meanwhile, regarding thoracic surgeries, although the proportion of thoracoscopic procedures increased similarly to that of laparoscopic procedures for digestive surgeries, the SSI rate among thoracoscopic procedures was not different from that of open procedures, probably because thoracic surgeries are usually clean and have a low SSI risk (S2 Fig). Similarly, although the frequency of endoscopic procedures increased in kidney and prostate surgeries, there was no difference in the SSI rates between endoscopic and open procedures.

We have shown the data of emergency and scheduled surgeries in 2019 in S2 Table. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures of emergency vs scheduled five digestive surgeries were 71.3% vs 84.0%, 76.7% vs 84.0%, 17.8% vs 25.1%, 23.9% vs 64.8%, and 28.2% vs 76.3%, for each of the five procedures, respectively, which indicates that the proportion of laparoscopic procedures of emergency surgeries was significantly higher than that of scheduled surgeries. This result suggests that surgeons tend to choose open procedures in emergency situations. The rate of SSI of both laparoscopic and open procedures of emergency surgeries was higher than that of scheduled surgeries except for open procedures of APPY. Although laparoscopic procedures require surgical proficiency because of limited sight of instruments, they are known to reduce postoperative problems and promote early discharge from the hospital, and thus, should continue to increase in usage based on the cautious indications for each surgical procedure.

Our study suggests that the SSI rate can be reduced by performing laparoscopic procedures instead of open procedures for specific types of surgeries. Although it is unknown to what extent the proportion of laparoscopic procedures can be increased for each type of surgery, the increase observed from 2009 to 2019 could be used as a reference for the promotion of laparoscopic procedures.

This study has several limitations. First, the JANIS is a voluntary surveillance, which inevitably has selection biases, although approximately 10% of all hospitals in Japan were covered in the surveillance. Second, we could not collect data of patients’ conditions, such as the type of antiseptic agent used or presence of bacterial colonization, because JANIS SSI section is designed to focus on SSIs. Third, the data collected in the surveillance have limitations regarding complexity of surgical procedures such as difficulty of the procedure, surgical technique used, and types of diseases that led to the surgery. Our study analysed a large dataset of 1,564,438 surgical procedures from 2009 to 2019, including 109,544 (APPY), 206,459 (CHOL), 60,225 (SB), 363,677 (COLO), and 134,695 (REC) procedures for the five digestive surgeries. This large-scale analysis based on the national surveillance database for over 10 years, for the first time, quantified the association between an increase in laparoscopic procedures and a reduction in the SSI rate in digestive surgeries. This report should encourage the appropriate introduction of laparoscopic surgical techniques in digestive surgeries and a consequent reduction of SSI rates.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Proportion of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic procedures and surgical site infection rates in esophagial surgery and gastric surgery.

a) The proportion of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic procedures for esophageal (ESOP) and three types of gastric surgery (total gastrectomy: GAST-T, distal gastrectomy: GAST-D, other gastrectomy: GAST-O). The blue line shows the rate of ESOP in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the rate of GAST-T. The gray line shows GAST-D. The yellow line shows the rate of GAST-O. b-e) The blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in all participating hospitals. The light blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in all participating hospitals. The light orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in the core participating hospitals.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Proportion of thoracoscopic procedures and surgical site infection rates in thoracic surgery.

a) The proportion of thoracoscopic procedures for thoracic surgery (THOR). The blue line shows the rate of thoracoscopic surgery in all participating hospitals and the light blue line shows the rate in the core participating hospitals. b) The blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in all participating hospitals. The light blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for thoracoscopic procedures in all participating hospitals. The light orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for thoracoscopic procedures in the core participating hospitals.

(TIF)

S1 Table. The surgical site infection rates for each year for each surgery.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. The difference between emergency and scheduled surgeries.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the hospitals that participated and contributed data to JANIS; we are also grateful to Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Abbreviations

APPY

appendix surgery

BILI

Bile duct, liver or pancreatic surgery

BRST

breast surgery

CARD

cardiac surgery

CBGB

coronary artery bypass graft with both chest and donor site incision

CHOL

gallbladder surgery

COLO

colon surgery

CRAN

craniotomy

FX

open reduction of fracture

GAST

gastric surgery

HER

herniorraphy

HPRO

hip prosthesis

JANIS

Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance

KPRO

knee prosthesis

LAM

laminectomy

NEPH

kidney surgery

PRST

prostate surgery

REC

rectal surgery

SB

small bowel surgery

SSI

surgical site infection

THOR

thoracic surgery

XLAP

exploratory surgery

Data Availability

All data to replicate the study's findings are available at https://github.com/bioprojects/laparoscopy_and_SSIs.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Research Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) under grant number JP21fk0108604. Funding acquisition: K. S. and M. S. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Kainer MA, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1198–208. Epub 2014/03/29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306801 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P, Yamin CK, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2039–46. Epub 2013/09/04. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Howard DP, Datta G, Cunnick G, Gatzen C, Huang A. Surgical site infection rate is lower in laparoscopic than open colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(5):423–7. Epub 2009/02/27. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01817.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kiran RP, El-Gazzaz GH, Vogel JD, Remzi FH. Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(2):232–8. Epub 2010/07/31. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.03.028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Buia A, Stockhausen F, Hanisch E. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review. World J Methodol. 2015;5(4):238–54. Epub 2015/12/30. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v5.i4.238 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EA, Sauerland S. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11(11):CD001546. Epub 2018/11/30. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Huang YM, Lee YW, Huang YJ, Wei PL. Comparison of clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):75. Epub 2020/01/11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-57059-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210–8. Epub 2013/02/12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.da Luz Moreira A, Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Remzi FH, Geisler DP, Church JM, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classifications 3 and 4: the minimally invasive approach is associated with significantly quicker recovery and reduced costs. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1280–6. Epub 2009/12/25. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0761-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Caroff DA, Chan C, Kleinman K, Calderwood MS, Wolf R, Wick EC, et al. Association of Open Approach vs Laparoscopic Approach With Risk of Surgical Site Infection After Colon Surgery. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1913570. Epub 2019/10/19. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13570 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Athanasiou C, Lockwood S, Markides GA. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature. World J Surg. 2017;41(12):3083–99. Epub 2017/07/19. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4123-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kayano H, Nomura E, Ueda Y, Kuramoto T, Machida T, Uda S, et al. Evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for small bowel obstruction and factors related to outcomes. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2020;15(2):268–75. Epub 2020/06/04. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2020.93243 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Takaya S, Hayakawa K, Matsunaga N, Moriyama Y, Katanami Y, Tajima T, et al. Surveillance systems for healthcare-associated infection in high and upper-middle income countries: A scoping review. J Infect Chemother. 2020;26(5):429–37. Epub 2020/02/23. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.01.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Aghdassi SJS, Schroder C, Gastmeier P. Gender-related risk factors for surgical site infections. Results from 10 years of surveillance in Germany. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:95. Epub 2019/06/07. doi: 10.1186/s13756-019-0547-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Mu Y, Banerjee S, Allen-Bridson K, Morrell G, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(10):783–805. Epub 2009/12/17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97–132; quiz 3–4; discussion 96. Epub 1999/04/10. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Douglas Bates MM, Bolker Ben, Walker Steve. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistics Software. 2015;67:1–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kagawa Y, Yamada D, Yamasaki M, Miyamoto A, Mizushima T, Yamabe K, et al. The association between the increased performance of laparoscopic colon surgery and a reduced risk of surgical site infection. Surg Today. 2019;49(6):474–81. Epub 2019/01/27. doi: 10.1007/s00595-019-1760-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Low DE. Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000–2011. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(5):1055–63. Epub 2011/11/18. doi: 10.1007/s11605-011-1731-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Takehiko Hanaki

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-24040Association between the proportion of laparoscopic approaches for digestive surgeries and the incidence of consequent surgical site infections, 2009-2019: A retrospective observational study based on national surveillance data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Toshiki Kajihara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Takehiko Hanaki, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This study was supported by the Research Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) under grant number JP21fk0108604. Funding acquisition: K. S. and M. S."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Toshiki Kajihara:

Thank you very much for allowing PLOS ONE team to see your submission entitled "Association between the proportion of laparoscopic approaches for digestive surgeries and the incidence of consequent surgical site infections, 2009-2019: A retrospective observational study based on national surveillance data".

We have now reviewed your submission and our view is that some major revisions are required before we can consider it for publication. This email is to invite you to respond to the reviewers comments attached below, and to revise your submission accordingly. We appreciate that these revisions will take some time and effort on your part, but we are confident that they will improve the quality and impact of your submission.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a large register-based study on surgical site infection (SSI) rate diagnosed in hospitals in Japan from 2009-2019. The study also report on the rate of laparoscopic procedures separately for this period. However, the study does not report the SSI rate after laparoscopic procedures. The study would benefit from a more detailed and transparent method section e.g. using RECORD statement, and maybe also other analyses depending on the data available.

Major comments:

1. It is not clear if your manuscript is reported in accordance with a reporting guideline, and the study design is not definitely clear to me. But I presume that RECCORD (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/record/) that is for register-based studies using routinely-collected health data would suit your manuscript and increase the transparency of your reporting.

2. Your outcome is somewhat unclear. You state that CDC definition was used, however, being unfamiliar with the JANIS SSI, it is unclear to me if the physicians at the hospital confirm SSI according to CDC when they report an SSI in JANIS SSI. Furthermore, it seems that JANIS SSI only include hospital data – what about the SSI treated at the patients private physician? Thus, I presume that you report the rate of SSI diagnosed in hospitals, correct?

3. Your study covers 10 years of data. It is evident from your data that the laparoscopic procedures increase tremendously during this period. However, could other factor contribute to decrease of SSIs? Patient-related factors, co-interventions such as prophylactic or empiric antibiotic treatment or others? There is no baseline information on the population receiving these procedures and the development in these over time. All your analyses are unadjusted. But this could be a limitation of your results. Please address in the result section or limitations section in the discussion depending on the data you have available.

4. If data are available you could address 3) by differentiating the types of procedures e.g. by using the surgical codes, if these are available.

Minor comments:

1. Introduction: Please ad a reference and be more specific than overall complications for the following sentence: “Laparoscopic techniques have been increasingly used in digestive surgeries, leading to fewer postoperative complications.”

2. Methods: Please add more information on the setting. You write “More hospitals progressively joined the JANIS SSI 91 section, and the program included 785 hospitals in 2019.” But what are the total number of hospitals in Japan, in other words how well is your coverage?

3. Methods: Are the procedures submitted to JANIS SSI reported by the hospital og linked by another nationwide register? How where they reported – as procedure codes? Which where used?

4. Methods: Who submit the outcome, SSI, according to CDC definitions? Hospitals, private practitioners? Is the outcome validated to follow CDC definitions?

5. Methods: How was a laparoscopic procedure confirmed?

6. Discussion: Please add a limitations section to your discussion.

Reviewer #2: The authors retrospectively investigated SSI ratio using their surveillance system form 2009 to 2019. I think several points should be addressed as follows.

How to collect all data from the hospitals participating in the surveillance? EDC system? CRF by each year?

Please represent SSI data showing the differences of superficial, deep or organ.

How much was the SSI rate of upper GI surgery?

Rec shows high SSI rate, because of the stoma creation, or the incidence coming from the perineal wound?

The data of the difference between emergency and scheduled surgeries should be described.

What does the table 2 mean? Odd ratio was compared to that of the start year? The trend, fashion and equipment are changing year by year. It is difficult to compare the risk ratio.

The caption of the figure axis should be rewritten (e.g., "proportion" should be "Proportion" in Figure 2 and with high DPI figures).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Siv Fonnes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 17;18(2):e0281838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281838.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Dec 2022

Point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript and for your helpful comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments. We hope that the changes, indicated in red font in the revised manuscript, reflect your suggestions and are satisfactory. Our point-by-point responses to your queries are given below.

Reviewer #1: This is a large register-based study on surgical site infection (SSI) rate diagnosed in hospitals in Japan from 2009-2019. The study also report on the rate of laparoscopic procedures separately for this period. However, the study does not report the SSI rate after laparoscopic procedures. The study would benefit from a more detailed and transparent method section e.g. using RECORD statement, and maybe also other analyses depending on the data available.

Major comments:

1. It is not clear if your manuscript is reported in accordance with a reporting guideline, and the study design is not definitely clear to me. But I presume that RECCORD (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/record/) that is for register-based studies using routinely-collected health data would suit your manuscript and increase the transparency of your reporting.

Response: We checked the RECORD guidelines that include 22 checklists. To satisfy the checklists, we have added the following three parts to the revised manuscript:

(1) “in Japan” to the title for Item No. 1 in the checklist.

(2) “The SSI surveillance in JANIS is conducted using the definition of the US National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS), with some modifications. It is comparable to other international SSI surveillances, such as the OP-KISS of Germany [14] and the National Healthcare Safety Network of the United States of America [15]. Surgeons in hospitals performed procedures and diagnosed SSI cases and reported the data to JANIS according to NHSN Operative Procedure Categories using ICD-9-CM code (https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/section/master/surgicaltechniquecode_ver2.1_20121220.xls).” and “These included 188 of 408 (46.1%) hospitals with over 500 beds, 464 of 2,174 (21.3%) hospitals with 200–499 beds and 133 of 5790 (2.3%) hospitals with less than 200 beds.” to the Materials and Methods section for Item No. 6. (Page 6, Lines 97-104)

(3) “This study has several limitations. First, the JANIS is a voluntary surveillance, which inevitably has selection biases, although approximately 10% of all hospitals in Japan were covered in the surveillance. Second, we did not collect data of patients’ conditions, such as the type of antiseptic agent used or presence of bacterial colonization, because JANIS SSI section is designed to focus on SSIs. Third, the data collected in the surveillance have limitations regarding complexity of surgical procedures such as difficulty of the procedure, surgical technique used, and types of diseases that led to the surgery.” to the Discussion section for the Item No. 19. (Page 19, lines 311-317)

2. Your outcome is somewhat unclear. You state that CDC definition was used, however, being unfamiliar with the JANIS SSI, it is unclear to me if the physicians at the hospital confirm SSI according to CDC when they report an SSI in JANIS SSI.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Regarding the definition, we have removed the statement of CDC definition, and instead added “The SSI surveillance in JANIS is conducted using the definition of the US National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS), with some modifications. It is comparable to other international SSI surveillances, such as the OP-KISS of Germany and the National Healthcare Safety Network of the United States of America.” to the Materials and Methods section. (Page 6, Lines 97-101)

Most procedures of APPY, CHOL, SB, COLO, REC (defined by ICD-9-CM code) were performed in hospitals in Japan. Surgeons are usually responsible for the course of procedures in Japan. This is because JANIS collects the data from hospitals. The surgeons and/or infection control nurses in their hospitals validated the data. The surgeons at the hospital can confirm SSI because most patients are usually followed up at outpatient clinics in the hospitals in Japan. We have thus added “Most patients were followed up at outpatient clinics in their hospitals in Japan. The surgeon is usually responsible for the course of procedures in Japan. This is because JANIS collects the data from hospitals. The surgeons and/or infection control nurses in the hospitals validated the data and submitted the data every six months.” to the Materials and Methods section. (Page 7, Lines 108-111)

Furthermore, it seems that JANIS SSI only include hospital data – what about the SSI treated at the patients private physician? Thus, I presume that you report the rate of SSI diagnosed in hospitals, correct?

Response: Correct, they report the rate of SSI diagnosed in hospitals. The SSI treated by the patients’ private physician is not reported in JANIS SSI, although surgeons at hospitals can confirm SSI because most patients were usually followed up at outpatient clinics in the hospitals in Japan.

3. Your study covers 10 years of data. It is evident from your data that the laparoscopic procedures increase tremendously during this period. However, could other factor contribute to decrease of SSIs? Patient-related factors, co-interventions such as prophylactic or empiric antibiotic treatment or others? There is no baseline information on the population receiving these procedures and the development in these over time. All your analyses are unadjusted. But this could be a limitation of your results. Please address in the result section or limitations section in the discussion depending on the data you have available.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We could not collect patients’ disease stage, comorbidities, antibiotic use, etc., as JANIS was designed to monitor prevalence of nosocomial infections. We have added sentences regarding the limitation to the Discussion, as detailed in the response to your last comment below.

4. If data are available you could address 3) by differentiating the types of procedures e.g. by using the surgical codes, if these are available.

Response: We use ICD-9-CM code for case definition. But we collected only NHSN Operative Procedure Categories, such as COLO, REC, etc. Therefore, we cannot analyze using the type of procedures for this study.

Minor comments:

1. Introduction: Please ad a reference and be more specific than overall complications for the following sentence: “Laparoscopic techniques have been increasingly used in digestive surgeries, leading to fewer postoperative complications.”

Response: We have added “In a systematic review, Buia et al showed that the advantage of the procedure was minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery [5]. It was based on another systematic review, that pain intensity on VAS scale was reduced on day one and wound infections were decreased in laparoscopic procedures for suspected appendicitis [6]. Laparoscopic procedures accelerated the recovery after colon surgery by decreasing pain and duration of hospital stay [7]. Van der Pas et al. reported that patients in the laparoscopic colectomy group lost less blood, bowel function returned sooner, and hospital stay was shorter than those in the open surgery group in a randomised, phase 3 trial [8].” to the Introduction. (Pages 4-5, Lines 63-72)

2. Methods: Please add more information on the setting. You write “More hospitals progressively joined the JANIS SSI 91 section, and the program included 785 hospitals in 2019.” But what are the total number of hospitals in Japan, in other words how well is your coverage?

Response: We have added “These included 188 of 408 (46.1%) hospitals with over 500 beds, 464 of 2,174 (21.3%) hospitals with 200–499 beds and 133 of 5790 (2.3%) hospitals with less than 200 beds.” in the Materials and methods section. (Page 6-7, Lines 106-108)

3. Methods: Are the procedures submitted to JANIS SSI reported by the hospital og linked by another nationwide register? How where they reported – as procedure codes? Which where used?

Response: Yes, the procedures submitted to JANIS were reported by the hospital as procedure codes. We have added “Surgeons in hospitals performed procedures and diagnosed SSI cases and reported the data to JANIS according to NHSN Operative Procedure Categories using ICD-9-CM code (https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/section/master/surgicaltechniquecode_ver2.1_20121220.xls).” to the Materials and Methods section. (Page 6, Lines 101-104)

4. Methods: Who submit the outcome, SSI, according to CDC definitions? Hospitals, private practitioners? Is the outcome validated to follow CDC definitions?

Response: Surgeons in hospitals performed procedures and diagnosed SSI cases and submitted the data. We have added “Most patients were followed up at outpatient clinics in their hospitals in Japan. The surgeon is usually responsible for the course of procedures in Japan. This is because JANIS collect the data from hospitals. The surgeons and/or infection control nurses in their hospitals validated the data and submitted the data every six months.” to the Materials and Methods section. (Page 7, Lines 108-111)

5. Methods: How was a laparoscopic procedure confirmed?

Response: If laparoscopy was used in a patient’s procedure, a surgeon and/or an infection control nurse entered it in the dataset. We have added “The surgeons and/or infection control nurses in their hospitals validated the data and submitted the data every six months.” to the Materials and Methods section. (Page 7, Lines 110-111)

6. Discussion: Please add a limitations section to your discussion.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added “This study has several limitations. First, the JANIS is a voluntary surveillance, which inevitably has selection biases, although approximately 10% of all hospitals in Japan were covered in the surveillance. Second, we could not collect data of patients’ conditions, such as the type of antiseptic agent used or presence of bacterial colonization, because JANIS SSI section is designed to focus on SSIs. Third, the data collected in the surveillance have limitations regarding complexity of surgical procedures such as difficulty of the procedure, surgical technique used, and types of diseases that led to the surgery.” in the Discussion section. (Page 19, Lines 311-317)

Reviewer #2: The authors retrospectively investigated SSI ratio using their surveillance system form 2009 to 2019. I think several points should be addressed as follows.

How to collect all data from the hospitals participating in the surveillance? EDC system? CRF by each year?

Response: We collected JANIS SSI division data from the hospitals using original EDC system every six months.

Please represent SSI data showing the differences of superficial, deep or organ.

Response: Thank you very much. We have added the type of SSI at the core hospitals in table 1.

How much was the SSI rate of upper GI surgery?

Response: We have added the data of upper GI surgeries in Table S1, and have added the following text “On the contrary, the proportion of SSIs of upper gastrointestinal surgeries was variable (Figure S1). Gastric surgeries were divided into total gastrectomy (GAST-T), Distal gastrectomy (GAST-D) and other gastric surgeries (GAST-O) in 2012. GAST-D and GAST-O showed a similar trend of increase in laparoscopic procedures associated with decrease in SSI rate, compared to the five digestive surgeries (odds ratio of the 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures for the surgical site infection rates was 0.941 [95% CI: 0.914-0.968, p<0.001] and 0.947 [95%CI: 0.918-0.977, p<0.001], respectively). On the other hand, GAST-T and esophageal surgeries (ESOP) did not show the trend (p-value=0.606 and 0.614). The number of procedures of GAST-T was continuously decreasing from 2,798 in 2012 to 1,570 in 2019. The number of laparoscopic procedures of GAST-T was also decreasing from 1,182 in 2012 to 704 in 2019. It was because of the development of the technique of gastrointestinal endoscopy, which led to detection and treatment of gastric diseases earlier. With respect to ESOP, the number of procedures of ESOP in 13 of 23 core participating hospitals was under 10 in 2019. Marker SR et al. reported that the outcome of esophageal surgeries in high surgical volume hospitals was better than that in low surgical volume hospitals, which suggests that surgeons' experience was required to reduce post-operative problems.” in the discussion section. (Page 17, lines 270-286)

Rec shows high SSI rate, because of the stoma creation, or the incidence coming from the perineal wound?

Response: The high SSI rate in REC is not because of the stoma creation in both laparoscopic and open procedures according to the following data: among laparoscopic procedures, the percentage of superficial and deep incisional infections of rectal surgeries was less than that of organ and space infections (34.9% and 7.7%, compared with 57.3%, added to Table 1). Among open procedures, although the percentage of superficial incisional infections (62.8%) was higher than that of the others (11.7% for deep incisional infections and 25.5% for organ and space infections), breakdown of the superficial incisional infections into superficial Incisional Primary (SIP) and Secondary (SIS) confirmed that 124 of 131 superficial incision infections were SIP, indicating that most SSIs in REC procedures are not related to stoma creation. We have added “Regarding REC, the percentage of superficial and deep incisional infections in laparoscopic procedures in 2019 was lower than that of open procedures (34.9, 7.7% vs 62.8, 11.7%). This showed that the SSIs were not related to the part of stoma. There was no difference between laparoscopic and open procedures in the percentage of type of SSIs of the other four surgeries.” to the Discussion section. (Page 16, lines 262-266)

The data of the difference between emergency and scheduled surgeries should be described.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added Table S2 and the following sentences to the Discussion: “We have shown the data of emergency and scheduled surgeries in 2019 in Table S2. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures of emergency vs scheduled five digestive surgeries were 71.3% vs 84.0%, 76.7% vs 84.0%, 17.8% vs 25.1%, 23.9% vs 64.8%, and 28.2% vs 76.3%, for each of the five procedures, respectively, which indicates that the proportion of laparoscopic procedures of emergency surgeries was significantly higher than that of scheduled surgeries. This result suggests that surgeons tend to choose open procedures in emergency situations. The rate of SSI of both laparoscopic and open procedures of emergency surgeries was higher than that of scheduled surgeries except for open procedures of APPY.” (Pages 18, 294-302)

What does the table 2 mean? Odd ratio was compared to that of the start year? The trend, fashion and equipment are changing year by year. It is difficult to compare the risk ratio.

Response: The odds ratio was not compared to that of the start year. Rather, it estimates how the odds (p/(1-p) where p is probability of occurrence of SSI) changes when there is a 10% increase in the proportion of laparoscopic procedures, compared to that when there is no increase in it, across 11 years.

The caption of the figure axis should be rewritten (e.g., "proportion" should be "Proportion" in Figure 2 and with high DPI figures).

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected it to “Proportion” from “proportion”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewersComments_v2.0.docx

Decision Letter 1

Takehiko Hanaki

1 Feb 2023

Association between the proportion of laparoscopic approaches for digestive surgeries and the incidence of consequent surgical site infections, 2009-2019: A retrospective observational study based on national surveillance data in Japan

PONE-D-22-24040R1

Dear Dr. Kajihara,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Takehiko Hanaki, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all comments and for writing a more transparent method section and for adding a limitation section in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Siv Fonnes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Takehiko Hanaki

9 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-24040R1

Association between the proportion of laparoscopic approaches for digestive surgeries and the incidence of consequent surgical site infections, 2009-2019: A retrospective observational study based on national surveillance data in Japan

Dear Dr. Kajihara:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Takehiko Hanaki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Proportion of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic procedures and surgical site infection rates in esophagial surgery and gastric surgery.

    a) The proportion of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic procedures for esophageal (ESOP) and three types of gastric surgery (total gastrectomy: GAST-T, distal gastrectomy: GAST-D, other gastrectomy: GAST-O). The blue line shows the rate of ESOP in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the rate of GAST-T. The gray line shows GAST-D. The yellow line shows the rate of GAST-O. b-e) The blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in all participating hospitals. The light blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in all participating hospitals. The light orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for laparoscopic procedures in the core participating hospitals.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Proportion of thoracoscopic procedures and surgical site infection rates in thoracic surgery.

    a) The proportion of thoracoscopic procedures for thoracic surgery (THOR). The blue line shows the rate of thoracoscopic surgery in all participating hospitals and the light blue line shows the rate in the core participating hospitals. b) The blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in all participating hospitals. The light blue line shows the surgical site infection rate for open procedures in the core participating hospitals. The orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for thoracoscopic procedures in all participating hospitals. The light orange line shows the surgical site infection rate for thoracoscopic procedures in the core participating hospitals.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. The surgical site infection rates for each year for each surgery.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. The difference between emergency and scheduled surgeries.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewersComments_v2.0.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data to replicate the study's findings are available at https://github.com/bioprojects/laparoscopy_and_SSIs.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES