环境可持续性常规无菌手术中的敷料(DRAPES 项目):多中心随机对照试验方案,比较使用可重复使用或一次性手术敷料对猫狗进行常规绝育手术后的伤口并发症发生率。

IF 2.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES BMC Veterinary Research Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1186/s12917-024-04276-5
Nicole Dyer, Kathryn Wareham, Hannah Doit, Natalie Robinson, Jenny Stavisky, Rachel Dean, Hannah James
{"title":"环境可持续性常规无菌手术中的敷料(DRAPES 项目):多中心随机对照试验方案,比较使用可重复使用或一次性手术敷料对猫狗进行常规绝育手术后的伤口并发症发生率。","authors":"Nicole Dyer, Kathryn Wareham, Hannah Doit, Natalie Robinson, Jenny Stavisky, Rachel Dean, Hannah James","doi":"10.1186/s12917-024-04276-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reusable surgical drapes have a lower lifetime environmental impact than disposable drapes in most cases. There is limited evidence regarding whether drape choice impacts patient outcomes including post-operative wound complications. The aim of this study is to compare wound complication rates following routine neutering surgeries in cats and dogs when reusable drapes are used as compared with disposable drapes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The trial will be conducted as a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel group randomised controlled trial in the UK. Dogs and cats undergoing routine neutering will be randomised to disposable or reusable drapes with all other aspects of care occurring as they usually would at the practice. The required sample size is 2,850, with 4750 animals to be recruited from up to ten practices to allow for a 40% loss to follow-up. Demographic data and details on peri-operative care will be collected at the time of surgery. Post-operative wound complications will be assessed and recorded as usual at each practice using clinical codes. The post-operative wound clinical codes and any antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery will be retrieved from the practice management software. The primary outcome that will be compared between the two groups is the rate of post-operative wound complications within 30 days of surgery which will be analysed by multivariable logistic regression with a binary outcome of wound complication (yes/no). Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of different types of complications and antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery which will be compared between the two groups by chi square analysis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our hypothesis is that there will be no difference in post-operative wound complication rates between disposable and reusable drapes. If the likely rate of post-surgical wound complications with reusable drapes is similar to that with disposable drapes, then veterinary clinical teams can choose the more sustainable option, confident that their patients will not be impacted by this choice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>We have retrospectively registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework on 14 Nov 2023 (Trial registration entry: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/72HMA ).</p>","PeriodicalId":9041,"journal":{"name":"BMC Veterinary Research","volume":"20 1","pages":"430"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11438356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drapes in Routine Aseptic Procedures for Environmental Sustainability (project DRAPES): a protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing post-operative wound complication rates following routine neutering of dogs and cats using reusable or disposable surgical drapes.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Dyer, Kathryn Wareham, Hannah Doit, Natalie Robinson, Jenny Stavisky, Rachel Dean, Hannah James\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12917-024-04276-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reusable surgical drapes have a lower lifetime environmental impact than disposable drapes in most cases. There is limited evidence regarding whether drape choice impacts patient outcomes including post-operative wound complications. The aim of this study is to compare wound complication rates following routine neutering surgeries in cats and dogs when reusable drapes are used as compared with disposable drapes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The trial will be conducted as a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel group randomised controlled trial in the UK. Dogs and cats undergoing routine neutering will be randomised to disposable or reusable drapes with all other aspects of care occurring as they usually would at the practice. The required sample size is 2,850, with 4750 animals to be recruited from up to ten practices to allow for a 40% loss to follow-up. Demographic data and details on peri-operative care will be collected at the time of surgery. Post-operative wound complications will be assessed and recorded as usual at each practice using clinical codes. The post-operative wound clinical codes and any antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery will be retrieved from the practice management software. The primary outcome that will be compared between the two groups is the rate of post-operative wound complications within 30 days of surgery which will be analysed by multivariable logistic regression with a binary outcome of wound complication (yes/no). Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of different types of complications and antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery which will be compared between the two groups by chi square analysis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our hypothesis is that there will be no difference in post-operative wound complication rates between disposable and reusable drapes. If the likely rate of post-surgical wound complications with reusable drapes is similar to that with disposable drapes, then veterinary clinical teams can choose the more sustainable option, confident that their patients will not be impacted by this choice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>We have retrospectively registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework on 14 Nov 2023 (Trial registration entry: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/72HMA ).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Veterinary Research\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"430\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11438356/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Veterinary Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04276-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Veterinary Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04276-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在大多数情况下,可重复使用的手术帘布对环境的影响低于一次性帘布。关于帘布的选择是否会影响患者的预后(包括术后伤口并发症),目前证据有限。本研究的目的是比较使用可重复使用手术帘和一次性手术帘时,猫和狗常规绝育手术后的伤口并发症发生率:该试验将在英国进行,是一项务实、多中心、平行组随机对照试验。接受常规绝育手术的狗和猫将被随机分配到一次性或可重复使用的帘布中,所有其他方面的护理工作将与诊所通常的做法相同。所需样本量为 2,850 份,将从最多 10 家诊所招募 4750 只动物,以保证 40% 的随访损失。将在手术时收集人口统计学数据和围手术期护理的详细信息。术后伤口并发症将由各诊所按照惯例使用临床代码进行评估和记录。术后伤口临床代码和术后 30 天内的抗生素使用情况将从诊所管理软件中获取。两组比较的主要结果是手术后 30 天内伤口并发症的发生率,将通过多变量逻辑回归分析伤口并发症的二元结果(是/否)。次要结果是不同类型并发症的发生率和术后 30 天内抗生素的使用情况,将通过卡方分析对两组进行比较:我们的假设是,一次性和可重复使用帘布的术后伤口并发症发生率没有差异。如果可重复使用帘布的术后伤口并发症发生率与一次性帘布相似,那么兽医临床团队就可以选择更可持续的方案,并确信他们的病人不会因这一选择而受到影响:我们已于2023年11月14日在开放科学框架(Open Science Framework)上对该方案进行了回顾性注册(试验注册条目:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/72HMA )。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Drapes in Routine Aseptic Procedures for Environmental Sustainability (project DRAPES): a protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing post-operative wound complication rates following routine neutering of dogs and cats using reusable or disposable surgical drapes.

Background: Reusable surgical drapes have a lower lifetime environmental impact than disposable drapes in most cases. There is limited evidence regarding whether drape choice impacts patient outcomes including post-operative wound complications. The aim of this study is to compare wound complication rates following routine neutering surgeries in cats and dogs when reusable drapes are used as compared with disposable drapes.

Methods: The trial will be conducted as a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel group randomised controlled trial in the UK. Dogs and cats undergoing routine neutering will be randomised to disposable or reusable drapes with all other aspects of care occurring as they usually would at the practice. The required sample size is 2,850, with 4750 animals to be recruited from up to ten practices to allow for a 40% loss to follow-up. Demographic data and details on peri-operative care will be collected at the time of surgery. Post-operative wound complications will be assessed and recorded as usual at each practice using clinical codes. The post-operative wound clinical codes and any antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery will be retrieved from the practice management software. The primary outcome that will be compared between the two groups is the rate of post-operative wound complications within 30 days of surgery which will be analysed by multivariable logistic regression with a binary outcome of wound complication (yes/no). Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of different types of complications and antibiotic use within 30 days of surgery which will be compared between the two groups by chi square analysis.

Discussion: Our hypothesis is that there will be no difference in post-operative wound complication rates between disposable and reusable drapes. If the likely rate of post-surgical wound complications with reusable drapes is similar to that with disposable drapes, then veterinary clinical teams can choose the more sustainable option, confident that their patients will not be impacted by this choice.

Trial registration: We have retrospectively registered the protocol on the Open Science Framework on 14 Nov 2023 (Trial registration entry: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/72HMA ).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Veterinary Research
BMC Veterinary Research VETERINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
420
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Veterinary Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of veterinary science and medicine, including the epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of medical conditions of domestic, companion, farm and wild animals, as well as the biomedical processes that underlie their health.
期刊最新文献
Clinical presentation, investigation findings, and treatment outcomes of intraluminal small intestinal obstruction by bezoars and other materials in adult cows- a retrospective study of 110 cases. Infectious keratoconjunctivitis in European bison (Bison bonasus) in Poland: risk factors, epidemiology and anatomopathological changes with analysis of potential role of Thelazia nematodes in the disease development. Mycoplasma synoviae elongation factor thermo stable is an adhesion-associated protein that enters cells by endocytosis and stimulates DF-1 cell proliferation. Survey in ruminants from Rwanda revealed high diversity and prevalence of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales. First report of transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) in pigs from Poland.
×
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