medigraphic.com
ISSN 1665-2576 (Impreso)

2015, Número 1-4

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Cir Endoscop 2015; 16 (1-4)


Comparación entre sutura recubierta con antibacterial versus cierre tradicional en la incidencia de complicaciones en apendicectomías y colecistectomías laparoscópicas

Granados-Romero JJ, Valderrama-Treviño AI, Contreras-Flores EH, Ceballos-Villalva JC, Espejel-Deloiza M, Estrada-Mata AG, Flores-Ceballos M

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 32
Paginas: 31-36
Archivo PDF: 206.65 Kb.


RESUMEN

Antecedentes: Desde 1950 se dio a conocer el uso de suturas con recubrimiento antimicrobiano para reducir el riesgo relacionado con las suturas e infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, previniendo la colonización y reduciendo la adhesión bacteriana. Material y métodos: Se estudió un total de 200 cirugías laparoscópicas de urgencia (colecistectomías y apendicectomías), con seguimiento por cuatro meses. Se dividió a la población en dos grupos por muestreo aleatorio simple, utilizando en el grupo A sutura de poliglactina 910 y en el grupo B sutura de poliglactina 910 Poli (Glicolida-Co-Lactida) con antibacterial (PGLA 90 Plus Atramat®). Se comparó la incidencia de complicaciones al utilizar las distintas suturas para el cierre de puertos quirúrgicos. Resultados: En la incidencia de infección y absceso en colecistectomía laparoscópica al utilizar PGLA 90 Plus Atramat®, se encontró diferencia significativa en comparación con Poliglactina 910, no encontrando diferencia significativa en dehiscencia. Respecto al abordaje laparoscópico en apendicectomías, se encontró diferencia significativa en infección, dehiscencia y la formación de abscesos respecto a los pacientes que utilizaron PGLA 90 Plus Atramat® en comparación con Poliglactina 910. Conclusión: El costo adicional de suturas recubiertas con antibacterial es justificable al disminuir tanto el riesgo de infección, dehiscencia y absceso así como la estancia hospitalaria.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Berard F, Gandon J. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg. 1964; 160: 1-192.

  2. Barie PS. Surgical site infections: epidemiology and prevention. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002; 3: S9-21.

  3. Chen SY, Chen TM, Dai NT, Fu JP, Chang SC, Deng SC et al. Do antibacterial-coated sutures reduce wound infection in head and neck cancer reconstruction? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011; 37: 300-304.

  4. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20: 247-278.

  5. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization. JAMA. 2003; 290: 1868-1874.

  6. Odom-Forren J. Preventing surgical site infections. Nursing. 2006; 36: 58-63.

  7. Galal I, El-Hindawy K. Impact of using triclosan-antibacterial sutures on incidence of surgical site infection. Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 133-138.

  8. Leaper DJ, van Goor H, Petrosillo N, Geiss HK, Torres AJ, Berger A. Surgical site infection – a European perspective of incidence and economic burden. Int Wound J. 2004; 1: 247-273.

  9. Fry DE. The economic costs of surgical site infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002; 3: 37-45.

  10. Alexander JW, Kaplan JZ, Altemeier WA. Role of suture materials in the development of wound infection. Ann Surg. 1967; 165: 192-199.

  11. Katz S, Izhar M, Mirelman D. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection. Ann Surg. 1981; 194: 35-41.

  12. Justinger C, Moussavian MR, Schlueter C, Kopp B, Kollmar O, Schilling MK. Antibiotic coating of abdominal closure sutures and wound infection. Surgery. 2009; 145: 330-334.

  13. Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Goheen MP, Krepel CJ, Johnson CP, Lewis BD et al. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: can antibacterial-coated sutures reduce the risk of microbial contamination? J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 203: 481-498.

  14. Edmiston CE, Spencer M, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Rossi PJ, Henen CR et al. Reducing the risk of surgical site infections: did we really think that SCIP would lead us to the promised land? Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011; 12: 169-177.

  15. Masini BD, Stinner DJ, Waterman SM, Wenke JC. Bacterial adherence to suture material. J Surg Educ. 2011; 68: 101-104.

  16. Edmiston CE Jr, 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: 89-100.

  17. Wolcott R, Cutting KF, Dowd SE. Surgical site infections: biofilms, dehiscence and delayed healing. Wounds UK. 2008; 4: 108-113.

  18. Deliaert AE, van den Kerckhove E, Tuinder S, Fieuws S, Sawor JH, Meesters-Caberg MA et al. The effect of triclosan-coated sutures in wound healing. A double blind randomized prospective pilot study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009; 62: 771-773.

  19. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effect of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture material on bacterial adherence. Am J Surg. 1984; 147: 197-204.

  20. Osterberg B, Blomstedt B. Effect of suture materials on bacterial survival in infected wounds: an experimental study. Act Chir Scand. 1979; 145: 431-434.

  21. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. The Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections. Am J Infect Control. 1999; 27: 97-132.

  22. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE, Fowler VG, Bronstein MZ, Trivette SL et al. Adverse and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin-resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2003; 36: 592-598.

  23. Blaker JJ, Nazhat SN, Boccaccini AR. Development and characterization of silver-doped bioactive glass-coated sutures for tissue engineering and wound healing applications. Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 1319-1329.

  24. Marco F, Vallez R, Gonzalez P, Ortega L, de la Lama J, Lopez-Duran L. Study of the efficacy of coated Vicryl plus antibacterial suture in an animal model of orthopedic surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007; 8: 359-365.

  25. Rothenburger S, Spangler D, Bhende S, Burkley D. In vitro antimicrobial evaluation of coated VICRYL) Plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 with triclosan) using zone of inhibition assays. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002; 3: 79-87.

  26. Leaper D, Assadian O, Hubner N-O, McBain A, Barbolt T, Rothenburger S et al. Antimicrobial sutures and prevention of surgical site infection: assessment of the safety of the antiseptic triclosan. Int Wound J. 2011; 8: 556-566.

  27. Obermeier A, Schneider J, Wehner S, Matl FD, Schieker M, von Eisenhart-Rothe et al. Novel high efficient coatings for anti-microbial surgical sutures using chlorhexidine in fatty acid slow-release carrier systems. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e101426.

  28. Bamber AI, Neal TJ. An assessment of triclosan susceptibility against methicillin-resistant and methicilin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 1999; 41: 107-109.

  29. Jones RD, Jampani HB, Newmann JL, Lee AS. Triclosan: a review of effectiveness and safety in healthcare settings. Am J Infect Control. 2000; 28: 184-196.

  30. Fleck T, Moidl R, Blacky A, Fleck M, Wolner E, Grabenwoger M et al. Triclosan-coated sutures for the reduction of sternal wound infections: economic considerations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84: 232-236.

  31. Rodeheaver GT, Kurtz LD, Belamy WT, Smith SL, Farris H, Edlich RF. Biocidal braided sutures. Arch Surg. 1983; 118: 322-327.

  32. Wang ZX, Jiang CP, Cao Y, Ding YT. Systematic review and meta-analysis of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2013; 100: 465-473.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com