Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection

Webster, Joan and Alghamdi, Abdullah (2013) Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1: CD006353.1-CD006353.38. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006353.pub3

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Webster, Joan
Alghamdi, Abdullah
Title Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection
Journal name Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1469-493X
Publication date 2013-01
Year available 2013
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006353.pub3
Issue 1
Start page CD006353.1
End page CD006353.38
Total pages 38
Place of publication Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Collection year 2014
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach, but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice.

Objectives: To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity.

Search methods: For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 July 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); OvidMEDLINE (1946 to JulyWeek 2, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 18, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to Week 28, 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to July 6, 2012).

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted
study authors for additional information.

Main results: We identified no new studies for this third update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups.

Authors’ conclusions: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.
Keyword Adhesives
Bedding and linens
Plastics
Iodine
Length of stay
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Article number CD006353.

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 8 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 10 Mar 2013, 00:40:10 EST by System User on behalf of Scholarly Communication and Digitisation Service