The Added Value of Sterility in Minor Surgical Procedures in Preventing Infection: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.3390/healthcare12212101
Anissa Mahraoui, J Carel Goslings, Wouter P Kluijfhout
{"title":"The Added Value of Sterility in Minor Surgical Procedures in Preventing Infection: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Anissa Mahraoui, J Carel Goslings, Wouter P Kluijfhout","doi":"10.3390/healthcare12212101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The necessity of maintaining sterility during minor surgical procedures is a debated topic due to concerns over the cost, environmental impact of sterile supplies, and the unclear benefits of sterility in minor surgical procedures. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on this topic. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic review of studies comparing sterile and non-sterile techniques in minor surgical procedures was conducted. Databases searched included PubMed and Cochrane up to May 2024. Studies were selected based on predefined criteria. <b>Results:</b> A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Non-sterility was mostly defined by the use of non-sterile gloves, whereas the remainder of the procedure was performed with the same technique as a sterile procedure. The analysis showed no significant difference in infection rates between sterile and non-sterile techniques. However, sterile techniques may reduce the risk of complications in specific contexts, such as in immunocompromised patients or in procedures performed in tissues deeper than subcutaneous fascia. <b>Conclusions:</b> The evidence suggests that for most minor surgical procedures, non-sterile techniques do not significantly increase the risk of postoperative infections. Further high-quality studies are needed to identify specific scenarios where sterility can be safely omitted to decrease surgical waste and costs without increasing the risk of infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":12977,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare","volume":"12 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12212101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The necessity of maintaining sterility during minor surgical procedures is a debated topic due to concerns over the cost, environmental impact of sterile supplies, and the unclear benefits of sterility in minor surgical procedures. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on this topic. Methods: A systematic review of studies comparing sterile and non-sterile techniques in minor surgical procedures was conducted. Databases searched included PubMed and Cochrane up to May 2024. Studies were selected based on predefined criteria. Results: A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Non-sterility was mostly defined by the use of non-sterile gloves, whereas the remainder of the procedure was performed with the same technique as a sterile procedure. The analysis showed no significant difference in infection rates between sterile and non-sterile techniques. However, sterile techniques may reduce the risk of complications in specific contexts, such as in immunocompromised patients or in procedures performed in tissues deeper than subcutaneous fascia. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that for most minor surgical procedures, non-sterile techniques do not significantly increase the risk of postoperative infections. Further high-quality studies are needed to identify specific scenarios where sterility can be safely omitted to decrease surgical waste and costs without increasing the risk of infection.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小手术无菌操作在预防感染方面的附加值:系统回顾
背景:小手术过程中保持无菌的必要性是一个备受争议的话题,因为人们担心无菌用品的成本和对环境的影响,而且小手术过程中无菌的好处也不明确。本综述旨在评估有关这一话题的现有证据。方法:对比较小型外科手术中无菌和非无菌技术的研究进行了系统性回顾。检索的数据库包括 PubMed 和 Cochrane(截至 2024 年 5 月)。研究根据预定义标准进行筛选。结果:共有八项研究符合纳入标准。非无菌操作主要是指使用非无菌手套,而其余操作则采用与无菌操作相同的技术。分析表明,无菌和非无菌技术在感染率上没有明显差异。不过,在特定情况下,无菌技术可能会降低并发症的风险,例如免疫力低下的患者或在比皮下筋膜更深的组织中进行的手术。结论:有证据表明,对于大多数小型外科手术而言,非无菌技术不会显著增加术后感染的风险。需要进一步开展高质量的研究,以确定在哪些特定情况下可以安全地省略无菌操作,从而在不增加感染风险的情况下减少手术浪费和成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare
Healthcare Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal (free for readers), which publishes original theoretical and empirical work in the interdisciplinary area of all aspects of medicine and health care research. Healthcare publishes Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, Research Notes and Short Communications. We encourage researchers to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. For theoretical papers, full details of proofs must be provided so that the results can be checked; for experimental papers, full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Additionally, electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculations, experimental procedure, etc., can be deposited along with the publication as “Supplementary Material”.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of Alexithymia and Associated Factors Among Dental Students in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Evaluation of Periodontitis and Fusobacterium nucleatum Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study. Evaluation of the Friday Night Live Mentoring Program on Supporting Positive Youth Development Outcomes. Analysis of Speech Features in Alzheimer's Disease with Machine Learning: A Case-Control Study. Mental Health Status of Patients Recovered from COVID-19 in Macau: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1