Abstract
Purpose of Review
Surgical site infections are healthcare-associated infections that cause significant morbidity and mortality. Best practices in prevention of these infections are combined in care bundles for consistent implementation.
Recent Findings
Care bundles have been used in nearly all surgical specialties. While the composition and size of bundles vary, the effect of a bundle depends on the number of evidence-based interventions included and the consistency of implementation. Bundles work because of the cooperation and collaboration among members of a team. Bundles for prevention of surgical site infections should address the multiple risk factors for infection before, during, and after the surgery.
Summary
Bundles increase standardization of processes and decrease operative variance that both lead to reductions in surgical site infections.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Surgical site infection (SSI) is an infection related to a surgical procedure that occurs at or near the incision site. It is the most common healthcare-associated infection (HAI) after surgery. Despite advances in infection control practices, SSIs remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, resulting in increased length of hospitalization and cost.
A care bundle is a combination of successful interventions that, when implemented completely and consistently, can yield superior results to the implementation of individual measures. Since the development of the “bundle” concept for improvement of critical care processes and patient outcomes, it has been used in different areas of medicine and surgery, including surgical site infection prevention. Different interventions to prevent SSIs are often bundled because multiple patient-related and procedure-related factors affect the SSI risk. This paper reviews the use of bundles in SSI prevention.
Epidemiology of SSIs
The global incidence of SSI ranges from 2.5 to 7% [1, 2]. In low- and middle-income countries, SSI affects up to a third of patients with a pooled incidence of 11.8 per 100 surgical procedures [3, 4•]. In high-income countries, though the rates of SSI are lower, varying between 1.2 and 5.2% [3], they remain to be the most frequent type of HAI.
The incidence of SSIs varies widely between procedures, surgeons, hospitals, and patients [5]. It is estimated that SSIs occur in 1–3% of patients undergoing inpatient surgery [6, 7•]. In 2021, 21 186 SSIs were reported to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) out of 2 759 027 operative procedures, which was about a 3% increase in the SSI standardized infection ratio (SIR) related to all NHSN operative procedure categories combined compared to the previous year [6]. SSIs are associated with 2–11 times increased risk of mortality [8, 9] with 77% of SSI-associated deaths directly attributable to the SSI [10].
The cost of SSIs is significant, with an estimated annual cost of $3.3–10 billion [11,12,13]. They can extend hospital length of stay by 9.7 days and increase hospitalization cost by more than $20 000 per admission [12, 14•].
Microbiology of SSIs
Microorganisms that cause SSIs can be endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous flora of the patient is the source of majority of infections. Incision of the skin or mucous membranes exposes tissues, becoming at risk for contamination with endogenous flora. This contamination is likely to lead to SSI if the surgical site is contaminated with > 105 microorganisms per gram of tissue [15] and with inoculum as low as 100 colony-forming units when foreign material is present at the site [16]. About 70–95% of all SSIs arise from the microbiome of the patient’s skin or nares [17]. Studies on alternative skin preparation regimens [18, 19] and separate nasal decolonization [20, 21], as well as mapping of the skin microbiome and disproportionate SSIs following incisions at specific sites [17, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] all support this. The most commonly isolated microorganisms are Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, streptococci, Enterococcus spp., and Escherichia coli [5, 33, 34].
Exogenous sources of SSI are those not originating from the patient’s flora. These include members of the surgical team, the operating room environment, instruments, and materials brought to the sterile field during the procedure. Exogenous flora are predominantly aerobes, especially Gram-positive organisms such as staphylococci and streptococci [10].
Microorganisms that cause SSIs vary by surgical location. Overall, S. aureus is the most common cause of SSIs. Infections caused by resistant pathogens lead to worse clinical outcomes compared to those caused by susceptible microorganisms [8, 35].
Risk Factors for SSI
Many factors, patient-related or procedure-related, have been associated with increased likelihood of SSI (Table 1). Some factors are nonmodifiable, like age, history of radiation, and history of prior skin and soft tissue infection. Modifiable risk factors, such as glucose control, tobacco use, and malnutrition, can be optimized to decrease the risk of developing an SSI.
Tobacco use is an established risk factor for surgical complications, including SSIs. Smoking causes vasoconstriction and endothelial dysfunction. It leads to reduced inflammatory response, impaired innate immune system, and attenuation of reparative cell functions including collagen synthesis and deposition. In tissues especially with compromised blood supply, all these processes may lead to critical tissue hypoxia, necrosis, and infection [36]. Current or past smokers have twice the risk of developing SSI compared to those who never used tobacco [37].
Hypoalbuminemia, a surrogate marker for malnutrition, is associated with increased risk for SSI [38,39,40]. Malnutrition impairs wound healing by decreased collagen synthesis and granuloma formation [41, 42]. It also leads to reduced innate immune response by impairing macrophage activation [42] and inducing macrophage apoptosis [43]. These mechanisms predispose patients with hypoalbuminemia to infection. An albumin level < 3.5 g/dL is associated with nearly 2.5 times higher risk of SSI [44].
SSI Prevention
The CDC [7•], Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) [45•], United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [46•], World Health Organization (WHO) [4•], and American College of Surgeons (ACS) and Surgical Infection Society (SIS) [14•] have guidance on the prevention of SSIs.
In 1982, the CDC published its first guideline [47] on the prevention of then called surgical wound infections and revised it in 1985 [48]. The 1999 update by the CDC and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) [10] led to the creation of the Surgical Infection Prevention (SIP) Project by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2002. In 2003, the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) was created as an extension of the SIP. While the SIP monitored adherence to three performance measures related to antimicrobial prophylaxis, SCIP also monitored three other measures: proper hair removal, postoperative glucose control, and maintenance of perioperative normothermia. These performance metrics would be linked to CMS payments later. In 2008, SHEA and the NICE released their guidelines [49, 50]. In 2016, the WHO published the first global guideline for SSI prevention [51, 52]. In the same year, the ACS and SIS had their guideline [14•].
SSI rates are one of the major hospital quality metrics used in pay-for-performance programs. Publicly reported, they are used to determine reimbursement since up to 60% of SSIs may be considered preventable when evidence-based recommendations are applied [13]. Procedures commonly reported to NHSN include cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, colorectal surgery, and abdominal hysterectomy. Since 2008, the CMS no longer reimburses hospitals for HAIs like SSI [53]. Specifically, CMS uses data for SSI following colorectal surgery and abdominal hysterectomy in repayment programs.
The following core recommendations are considered best practices in the prevention of SSI according to expert society guidelines.
Decolonization with antistaphylococcal agent reduces SSI risk. In order to suppress S. aureus colonization, patients are given intranasal antimicrobial, skin antiseptic agent, or both prior to surgery. Current evidence is most supportive of use of twice daily 2% intranasal mupirocin and daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing for up to 5 days prior to surgery, especially cardiothoracic and orthopedic procedures, and other procedures at high risk of staphylococcal SSI (e.g., involvement of prosthetic material) [54].
Preparation of the operative site involves antisepsis and, if necessary, hair removal. Surgical skin preparation with an alcohol-based agent and antiseptic reduces SSI risk. Though alcohol is highly bactericidal, it does not have persistent activity when used alone. Combining alcohol with an antiseptic (e.g., CHG or povidone iodine) has a rapid, cumulative, and residual activity [55]. CHG-alcohol combination is associated with lower rates of SSI compared with povidone iodine-alcohol [18, 56, 57]. Hair removal at the operative site should only be performed if absolutely necessary. Preoperative hair removal with shaving is associated with higher risk of SSI compared with either use of depilatory agents or no hair removal [58]. Shaving creates microscopic cuts in the skin which can later serve as niduses for bacterial growth [10]. If hair will interfere with the surgical procedure, clipping or use of a depilatory agent is recommended outside of the operating room [45•].
Administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis within 60 min prior to incision is recommended to maximize tissue concentration of the antibiotic [59, 60]. Aside from timing, the dose and redosing of antimicrobials are important. Dosing should be based on the patient’s weight. For long surgeries as well as those with excessive blood loss, redosing helps maintain adequate serum and tissue concentration levels of the antimicrobial agent. After incisional closure, prophylactic antibiotic should be discontinued because it does not further reduce the SSI risk and, moreover, it is associated with increased risk of adverse events.
Maintenance of normothermia during the perioperative period decreases the SSI risk [61,62,63,64]. Skin warming, warmed intravenous fluids, forced warm air, or their combinations are utilized to keep the core body temperature at least 35.5 °C. Hypothermia may impair neutrophil function directly or indirectly by triggering subcutaneous vasoconstriction and tissue hypoxia [65].
Blood glucose should be monitored and controlled during the perioperative period in all patients, regardless of diabetes status. Hyperglycemia impairs leukocyte function and potentiates procoagulant responses. Since postoperative hyperglycemia is associated with increased SSI risk [66,67,68], blood glucose level of 110–150 mg/dL is recommended. Stricter blood glucose control of < 110 mg/dL has not consistently shown benefit and is associated with increased episodes of hypoglycemia and other adverse events [69].
Use of impervious plastic wound protectors during gastrointestinal and biliary tract surgery decreases risk for SSI [70, 71]. These plastic sheaths facilitate retraction of incision without requiring additional mechanical retractors.
Intraoperative wound lavage with an antiseptic, not saline, decreases SSI risk [72, 73]. Sterile dilute povidone iodine lavage is recommended over nonantiseptic lavage [74,75,76,77].
Negative pressure wound therapy also reduces the SSI risk [78, 79]. Reduction of fluid accumulation promotes faster primary wound healing.
Use of checklist improves adherence with best practices in SSI prevention. The use of the 19-item WHO Surgical Safety Checklist [80] decreases surgical complications such as SSI and death [81,82,83]. Despite this, variation in the practices included in checklists exists.
Bundles in SSI Prevention
The concept of care bundles was introduced by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in 2001. A care bundle is a set of practices that, when implemented together, lead to better patient outcomes than when implemented individually [84•]. Numerous factors before, during, and after surgery influence the patient’s risk of SSI. Because the prevention of SSIs is complex, bundles ensure compliance and improve patient safety. Although interventions in a bundle are evidence-informed, some are supported by randomized trials while others are derived from cohort studies or expert consensus.
Colorectal Surgery
Bundles have been used extensively in colorectal surgery. A meta-analysis including 2 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 28 cohort studies involving 20 701 patients showed lower colorectal SSI rate of 8.4% (894 of 10 627) in groups that received bundle compared with those that did not (15.5%) (1561 of 10 074) (risk ratio [RR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 – 0.65]) [85]. The most frequently used interventions in the studies included multidisciplinary collaborative team or steering committee led by a colorectal surgery champion; hospital administration leadership support; educational meetings with relevant frontline clinicians; use of checklist; use of electronic order sets and automatic reminders; standardization of clinical practices and protocols; performance feedback to staff and clinicians; and overall promotion of culture and safety and openness to change [85]. Compared to an earlier meta-analysis [86] of 23 studies (17 557 patients) which found that bundles with sterile closure trays, mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, and pre-closure glove changes led to greater colorectal SSI risk reduction, this recent meta-analysis that included 3 additional studies found preoperative bathing with CHG and standardized postoperative wound dressing changes at 48 h were also associated with significant SSI reduction [85]. Interestingly, the highest SSI reduction in the meta-analysis was associated with the largest bundle size [85]. These systematic reviews and meta-analyses [85,86,87] show the heterogeneity in the bundle interventions included in studies of colorectal SSI prevention.
Orthopedic Surgery
SSIs following arthroplasties decline with bundle use according to multiple studies [88,89,90,91]. A multicenter study involving 18 791 hip arthroplasties showed a decrease in SSI rates from 2.9% to 1.4% after bundle implementation [88]. A 92.3% reduction in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following knee arthroplasties was seen after bundle use from 1.43% (13 of 908) to 0.11% (1 of 890) [89]. PJI rates following primary or revision total joint arthroplasties dropped from 12.9% (9 of 70) pre-bundle to 1.9% (2 of 108) post-bundle [90]. A bundle with interventions implemented one after the other within the study period led to a decline in PJI rates after total joint arthroplasties from 1.7% (20 of 1150) to 0.4% (4 of 1053) [91]. Interventions included staff education, preoperative patient optimization, antimicrobial prophylaxis, nasal/skin decolonization, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis modification, and povidone iodine wound irrigation [91].
Vascular Surgery
Bundle use decreased vascular SSI in contaminated surgeries from 33.3% to 13.9% [92]. A 97% reduction in SSI rate after lower extremity vascular bypass surgeries was seen from 18% (43 of 234) to 4% (3 of 73) when a bundle consisting of preoperative and postoperative CHG showers and transverse groin incision was implemented [93]. In another before-after study, SSI following lower extremity revascularization decreased from 14 to 7% after bundle implementation [94].
Neurosurgery
Rates of cranial neurosurgery SSI decreased by 53%, from 7.8% (25 of 322) to 3.7% (11 of 296) after implementation of bundle consisting of 10 interventions [95]. In a before-after study of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt surgeries, no SSIs were recorded (0 of 52) after a bundle was implemented compared to 7.3% (9 of 124) prior to the implementation [96]. Reduction in extraventricular drain-related infections (EVDRI) after surgery was seen in another study, from 29.1% (41 of 141) to 4.8% (10 of 208) [97]. A study involving 261 extraventricular drain catheter placements that implemented updates on its bundle showed a decline in EVDRI from 13.4 to 2.5 per 1000 days of catheter use [98]. The updated bundle included glove changes, use of CHG dressing, head washing with CHG soap, and changes in CSF sampling protocol in case of suspected infection [98]. Combined craniotomy and shunt procedure SSI rates decreased after bundle implementation from 3.2% (132 of 4137) to 2.1% (26 of 1250), a 37.5% reduction [99]. SSI after cranioplasties also decreased from 23.8% (5 of 21) to 2.8% (1 of 36) with bundle implementation [100].
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Obstetrics and gynecology bundles have decreased SSI rates. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 pre- and postintervention studies involving 17 399 women showed lower rates of infection following cesarean section from baseline of 6.2% to 2.0% after bundle implementation (RR 0.33 [95% CI 0.25 – 0.43]) [101]. Bundles in these studies involved interventions on antimicrobial prophylaxis, hair removal with clipping, CHG skin preparation (wipes/shower), enhancements to aseptic surgical technique, placental removal with gentle traction, patient and staff education, and wound dressing specification [101]. In a before-after study of 2099 hysterectomies, SSI rates declined from 4.5% (61 of 1352) to 1.9% (14 of 747) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.46 [95% CI 0.25 – 0.82]) after use of bundle [102].
Pediatric Surgery
Bundles have been useful in pediatric surgeries similarly to studies focused on adult patients. Several before-after studies in pediatric cardiothoracic surgery showed reduced SSIs after use of bundles. One study that focused on a postoperative bundle on top of an existing pre- and intraoperative bundle for pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery showed 74% decline in SSI rates from 3.4 per 100 procedures (27 of 799) to 0.9 per 100 procedures (5 of 570) [103]. A bundle decreased SSI in cardiothoracic surgeries among pediatric patients from 7.4% (23 of 310) to 1.7% (16 of 971) [104]. A study of 1768 cardiothoracic procedures that utilized a bundle of 14 interventions showed a reduction in SSI from 2.6% (24 of 931) to 1.4% (12 of 837) [105]. For the first time, negative pressure dressing after sternotomy especially in neonates was included in a pediatric bundle [105]. In pediatric orthopedic surgeries, SSI rates dropped from 4% to zero following implementation of two types of bundles, one for patients with high risk (e.g., those who required large amounts of instrumentation needed and those with neuromuscular condition) and with low risk (e.g., no nutritional deficiencies, no implants required) [106]. SSIs following pediatric spine surgeries decreased from an average of 5.8% to 2.2% (RR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18 – 0.94]) after bundle implementation [107]. A study on pediatric neurosurgeries demonstrated a 79% reduction in SSIs after bundle implementation from 2.9 per 100 procedures to 0.62 per 100 procedures (RR 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 – 0.56) [108]. CSF shunt infection rates in children also decreased from 8.8% to 5.7%, a 36% reduction when a bundle was implemented [109].
Mixed/Combined Surgeries
Several studies combined different surgeries in their analyses. A study performed separate meta-analyses of 5 RCTs and 19 observational studies of 28 887 patients who underwent cardiac or orthopedic surgery [110]. The RCTs demonstrated a trend of 41% decrease in the S. aureus SSI risk in bundle group vs standard group (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.33 – 1.06]) while the observational studies showed that bundle use was associated with 51% reduction in the staphylococcal SSI risk (RR 0.49 [95% CI 0.41 – 0.59]). Interventions in the bundles focused on nasal and/or skin decolonization. In a before-after study of 1672 procedures in general surgery or orthopedic surgery, the overall SSI risk declined from 3.4% (28 of 828) to 1.0% (9 of 844) after implementation of a bundle consisting of 11 interventions [111].
A recent meta-analysis of 4 RCTs and 14 before-after studies (1 controlled and 13 uncontrolled) reanalyzed uncontrolled before-after studies as interrupted time series studies (ITS) [112•]. General, colorectal, gynecologic, orthopedic, cardiovascular, and pediatric surgical procedures were included. The most common interventions in the bundles were skin preparation with alcohol-based CHG, antimicrobial prophylaxis, hair removal with clippers, and use of separate closing tray of surgical instruments for wound closure. The results of the RCTs were mixed. One showed lower SSI risk [113], another a higher SSI risk [114], and 2 did not show effect [115, 116]. The higher SSI risk with bundle implementation seen in one RCT [114] was likely due to the inclusion of potentially harmful intervention of fluid restriction and the omission of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics which could be beneficial and was given to the control group. The controlled before-after study showed reduction in SSI risk following knee surgery (aOR 0.88 [95% CI 0.78 – 0.99]) and hip surgery (aOR 0.85 [95% CI 0.75 – 0.96]) [117]. In the 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, 12 [118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129] originally showed significant decline in SSI rates after bundle use and 1 [130] reported an increase in SSI rate. Reanalysis of these studies demonstrated that only 4 [118, 120, 121, 129] had robust decline in SSI incidence after bundle implementation. Meta-analysis of the ITSs showed a significant decrease in SSI rates after bundle implementation (pooled effect estimate of level change -1.16 [95% CI -1.78 – -0.53]). Unlike in other systematic reviews [85,86,87, 101, 131] that suggested that larger bundle size had larger reduction in SSI incidence, meta-regression of ITSs in this study did not demonstrate an association between SSI reduction and the bundle size. However, bundles with more evidence-based interventions were associated with a larger SSI risk reduction [112•].
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a bundled approach to perioperative care of surgical patients. Based on the philosophy that patients do better when emotional and physiologic stresses are minimized during surgery, it is a multidisciplinary care improvement initiative that promotes return of patients to normal functional status as quickly as possible. In 2001, the ERAS Study Group was established. Soon after its formation, it discovered wide variations in surgical practice and huge discrepancy between actual practices and what were considered best practices [132]. This led to the development of evidence-based protocol to optimize patient outcomes. Initially developed for colorectal surgery, ERAS programs are now used in many surgical specialties. ERAS bundles or protocols have been associated with reduction in overall complications and length of stay, as well as readmissions and cost.
A meta-analysis of 42 RCTs of different surgeries (gastrointestinal, genitourinary, thoracic, vascular and orthopedic) involving 5241 patients showed that ERAS programs led to 38% reduction in postoperative complications (RR 0.62 [95% CI 0.55 – 0.70]) which included a 27% reduction in SSIs (RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.56 – 0.95]) [133•]. Average length of hospital stay decreased by 2.4 days (95% CI -2.74 – -1.96), total cost of hospitalization decreased by $639 (95% CI -933.85 – -344.28), and time to first flatus (measure of return of gastrointestinal function) decreased by 13.1 h (95% CI -17.98 – -8.26) [133•]. Most common elements in the programs were preadmission counseling, fluid and carbohydrate loading, no prolonged fasting, no/selective bowel preparation, midthoracic epidural analgesia, no drains and nasogastric tubes, early catheter removal, early oral nutrition, early mobilization, and use of non-opioid oral analgesia or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [133•]. ERAS protocol implementation for colorectal surgery was associated with 59% SSI risk reduction from 12.3% (26 of 212) to 5.0% (13 of 258) [134]. A 58% decline in SSI rates was seen with ERAS program for cesarean deliveries (OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.19 – 0.96]) [135].
Conclusion
The impact of a bundle depends on the evidence behind a recommendation and on its consistent implementation. Heterogeneity in bundle components exists and there is likely no best bundle for all. Though interventions in a bundle for SSI prevention should involve all phases of care—preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative, the components of the most effective bundle will depend on an institution and should be tailored to its context. Bundles should evolve overtime. As new evidence becomes available, outdated interventions and potentially harmful practices should be reviewed and replaced.
As IHI conceived them, bundles were not intended to be comprehensive care. Moreover, bundles on their own do not improve care. It is the cooperation and teamwork needed for bundles that lead to high levels of performance not seen on individual components. The synergy resulting from collaboration and communication must be sustained by multidisciplinary efforts to deliver high quality care. Since understanding of habits and processes is important, all stakeholders must be involved from bundle conceptualization to implementation. Culture change involves everyone: frontline staff, leadership, and patients.
SSI prevention is complex. Since various factors influence a patient’s journey through surgery, integration of interventions before, during, and after surgery is essential. Even when best practices are known, implementation of measures is difficult to standardize. Care bundles aid in reliable implementation of evidence-based practices into routine care for all patients to prevent SSIs. We expect to see more care bundles in perioperative pathways for SSI prevention.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Mengistu DA, Alemu A, Abdukadir AA, Mohammed Husen A, Ahmed F, Mohammed B, Musa I. Global incidence of surgical site infection among patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Inquiry. 2023;60:469580231162549.
Danwang C, Bigna JJ, Tochie JN, Mbonda A, Mbanga CM, Nzalie RNT, Guifo ML, Essomba A. Global incidence of surgical site infection after appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e034266.
World Health Organization. Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated infection worldwide. World Health Organization. Geneva; 2011.
• World Health Organization. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. Geneva; 2018. Latest WHO guideline on SSI prevention.
Owens C, Stoessel K. Surgical site infections: epidemiology, microbiology and prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2008;70:3–10.
National Health Safety Network. 2021 National and state healthcare-associated infections progress report. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/progress-report.html. Accessed 18 Jul 2023.
• Berriós-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:784–91. Latest CDC guideline on SSI prevention.
Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE, Fowler VG, Bronstein MZ, Trivette SL, Briggs JP, Sexton DJ, Kaye KS. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:592–8.
Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:725–30.
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, Committee THICPA. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:247–80.
Scott RDI. The direct medical costs of healthcare-associated infections in the US hospitals and the benefits of prevention. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234295.003.0002.
Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P, Yamin CK, Keohane C, Denham CR, Bates DW. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:2039–46.
Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berríos-Torres SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:605–27.
• Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, Harbrecht BG, Jensen EH, Fry DE, Itani KM, Dellinger EP, Ko CY, Duane TM. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:59–74. Latest ACS/SIS guideline on SSI prevention.
Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg. 1975;130:579–84.
Elek S, Conen P. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol. 1957;38:573–86.
Wenzel RP. Surgical site infections and the microbiome: an updated perspective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;40:590–6.
Darouiche RO, Wall MJJ, Itani KMF, et al. Chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine for surgical site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:18–26.
Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, Martin S, Cahill AG, Odibo AO, Colditz GA, Macones GA. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:647–55.
Bode LGM, Kluytmans JAJW, Wertheim HFL, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:9–17.
Bostian PA, Vaida J, Brooks WC, Chaharbakhshi E, Dietz MJ, Klein AE, Murphy TR, Frye BM, Lindsey BA. A novel protocol for nasal decolonization using prolonged application of an alcohol-based nasal antiseptic reduces surgical site infections in total joint arthroplasty patients: a retrospective cohort tudy. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2023;24:651-656.
Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27:302–45.
Shiono Y, Ishii K, Nagai S, et al. Delayed Propionibacterium acnes surgical site infections occur only in the presence of an implant. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32758.
Tammelin A, Hambraeus A, Stahle E. Source and route of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis transmitted to the surgical wound during cardio-thoracic surgery. Possibility of preventing wound contamination by use of special scrub suits. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47:266–76.
Levy PY, Fenollar F, Stein A, Borrione F, Cohen E, Lebail B, Raoult D. Propionibacterium acnes postoperative shoulder arthritis: an emerging clinical entity. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1884–6.
Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Rispoli DM, Cofield RH. Deep infection after rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16:306–11.
Sethi PM, Sabetta JR, Stuek SJ, Horine SV, Vadasdi KB, Greene RT, Cunningham JG, Miller SR. Presence of Propionibacterium acnes in primary shoulder arthroscopy: results of aspiration and tissue cultures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:796–803.
Matsen FAI, Butler-Wu S, Carofino BC, Jette JL, Bertelsen A, Bumgarner R. Origin of Propionibacterium in surgical wounds and evidence-based approach for culturing Propionibacterium from surgical sites. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2013;95:e1811–7.
Saltzman MD, Marecek GS, Edwards SL, Kalainov DM. Infection after shoulder surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:208–18.
Sabetta JR, Rana VP, Vadasdi KB, Greene RT, Cunningham JG, Miller SR, Sethi PM. Efficacy of topical benzoyl peroxide on the reduction of Propionibacterium acnes during shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:995–1004.
Stephens Richards B, Emara KM. Delayed infections after posterior TSRH spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: revisited. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1900–6.
Sampedro MF, Huddleston PM, Piper KE, et al. A biofilm approach to detect bacteria on removed spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1218–24.
Seidelman JL, Lewis SS, Baker AW, Anderson DJ. Surgical site infections. In: Weber DJ, Talbot TR (eds) Mayhall’s Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Prevention, 5th ed. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, PA. 2021;183–97.
Seidelman JL, Baker AW, Lewis SS, Advani SD, Smith B, Anderson D, Duke Infection Control Outreach Network Surveillance Team. Surgical site infection trends in community hospitals from 2013 to 2018. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44:610–5.
Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF, Schmader KE, Choi Y, Sloane R, Sexton DJ. Clinical and financial outcomes due to methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection: a multi-center matched outcomes study. PLoS ONE. 2009;4: e8305.
Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1069–79.
Wukich DK, McMillen RL, Lowery NJ, Frykberg RG. Surgical site infections after foot and ankle surgery: a comparison of patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:2211–3.
Hennessey DB, Burke JP, Ni-Dhonochu T, Shields C, Winter DC, Mealy K. Preoperative hypoalbuminemia is an independent risk factor for the development of surgical site infection following gastrointestinal surgery: a multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2010;252:325–9.
Mahdi H, Gojayev A, Buechel M, Knight J, SanMarco J, Lockhart D, Michener C, Moslemi-Kebria M. Surgical site infection in women undergoing surgery for gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:779–86.
Kishawi D, Schwarzman G, Mejia A, Hussain AK, Gonzalez MH. Low preoperative albumin levels predict adverse outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2020;102:889–95.
Ward MW, Danzi M, Lewin MR, Rennie MJ, Clark CG. The effects of subclinical malnutrition and refeeding on the healing of experimental colonic anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1982;69:308–10.
Reynolds JV, Redmond HP, Ueno N, Steigman C, Ziegler MM, Daly JM, Johnston RBJ. Impairment of macrophage activation and granuloma formation by protein deprivation in mice. Cell Immunol. 1992;139:493–504.
Rivadeneira DE, Grobmyer SR, Naama HA, Mackrell PJ, Mestre JR, Stapleton PP, Daly JM. Malnutrition-induced macrophage apoptosis Surgery. 2001;129:617–25.
Yuwen P, Chen W, Lv H, et al. Albumin and surgical site infection risk in orthopaedics: a meta-analysis. BMC Surg. 2017;17:7.
• Calderwood MS, Anderson DJ, Bratzler DW, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44:695–720. Most recent practice recommendations for SSI prevention among the expert organizations. SHEA/IDSA/APIC/AHA reclassified use of bundles as essential practice.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng125. Accessed 8 May 2023. Latest NICE guidelines on SSI prevention in the UK.
Simmons BP. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1983;11:133–41.
Garner JS. CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Supersedes guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections published in 1982. (Originally published in November 1985). Revised. Infect Control. 1986;7:193–200.
Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:S51–61.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Surgical site infection: prevention and treatment of surgical site infection. RCOG Press. London; 2008.
Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, de Jonge S, et al. New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:e276–87.
Allegranzi B, Zayed B, Bischoff P, et al. New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:e288–303.
Stone PW. Changes in Medicare reimbursement for hospital-acquired conditions including infections. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:A17-18.
Schweizer M, Perencevich E, McDanel J, Carson J, Formanek M, Hafner J, Braun B, Herwaldt L. Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346: f2743.
Maiwald M, Chan ESY. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e44277.
Hadiati DR, Hakimi M, Nurdiati DS, Masuzawa Y, da Silva Lopes K, Ota E. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6:CD007462.
Chen S, Chen JW, Guo B, Xu CC. Preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2020;44:1412–24.
Tanner J, Melen K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;8:CD004122.
Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect. 2013;14:73–156.
Bratzler DW, Houck PM, Workgroup SIPGW, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1706–15.
Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1209–15.
Melling AC, Ali B, Scott EM, Leaper DJ. Effects of preoperative warming on the incidence of wound infection after clean surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:876–80.
Pu Y, Cen G, Sun J, Gong J, Zhang Y, Zhang M, Wu X, Zhang J, Qiu Z, Fang F. Warming with an underbody warming system reduces intraoperative hypothermia in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized controlled study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:181–9.
Madrid E, Urrútia G, i Figuls MR, Pardo-Hernandez H, Campos JM, Paniagua P, Maestre L, Alonso-Coello P. Active body surface warming systems for preventing complications caused by inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD009016.
Sessler DI. Complications and treatment of mild hypothermia. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:531–43.
Kotagal M, Symons RG, Hirsch IB, Umpierrez GE, Dellinger EP, Farrokhi ET, Flum DR, SCOAP-CERTAIN Collaborative. Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes. Ann Surg. 2015;261:97–103.
Kao LS, Phatak UR. Glycemic control and prevention of surgical site infection. Surg Infect. 2013;14:437–44.
Kiran RP, Turina M, Hammel J, Fazio V. The clinical significance of an elevated postoperative glucose value in nondiabetic patients after colorectal surgery: evidence for the need for tight glucose control? Ann Surg. 2013;258:599–604.
Bellon F, Solà I, Gimenez-Perez G, Hernández M, Metzendorf M-I, Rubinat E, Mauricio D. Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;8:CD007315.
Il KS, Oh HK, Kim MH, Kim MJ, Kim DW, Kim HJ, Kang SB. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the clinical effectiveness of impervious plastic wound protectors in reducing surgical site infections in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Surgery. 2018;164:939–45.
Bressan AK, Aubin J-M, Martel G, et al. Efficacy of a dual-ring wound protector for prevention of surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with intrabiliary stents: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2018;268:35-40.
Whiteside OJH, Tytherleigh MG, Thrush S, Farouk R, Galland RB. Intra-operative peritoneal lavage–who does it and why? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87:255–8.
Ambe PC, Rombey T, Rembe J-D, Dörner J, Zirngibl H, Pieper D. The role of saline irrigation prior to wound closure in the reduction of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Saf Surg. 2020;14:47.
de Jonge SW, Boldingh QJJ, Koch AH, et al. Timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infection: TAPAS, an observational cohort study. Ann Surg. 2021;274:e308–14.
Norman G, Atkinson RA, Smith TA, Rowlands C, Rithalia AD, Crosbie EJ, Dumville JC. Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10:CD012234.
Mueller TC, Loos M, Haller B, Mihaljevic AL, Nitsche U, Wilhelm D, Friess H, Kleeff J, Bader FG. Intra-operative wound irrigation to reduce surgical site infections after abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400:167–81.
Thom H, Norman G, Welton NJ, Crosbie EJ, Blazeby J, Dumville JC. Intra-cavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surg Infect. 2021;22:144–67.
Zwanenburg PR, Tol BT, Obdeijn MC, Lapid O, Gans SL, Boermeester MA. Meta-analysis, meta-regression, and GRADE assessment of randomized and nonrandomized studies of incisional negative pressure wound therapy versus control dressings for the prevention of postoperative wound complications. Ann Surg. 2020;272:81–91.
Norman G, Shi C, Goh EL, Murphy EM, Reid A, Chiverton L, Stankiewicz M, Dumville JC. Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;4:CD009261.
World Health Organization. WHO surgical safety checklist. 2009. https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/research/safe-surgery/tool-and-resources. Accessed 7 Apr 2023.
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–9.
van Klei WA, Hoff RG, Van Aarnhem EEHL, Simmermacher RKJ, Regli LPE, Kappen TH, Van Wolfswinkel L, Kalkman CJ, Buhre WF, Peelen LM. Effects of the introduction of the WHO “surgical safety checklist” on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study. Ann Surg. 2012;255:44–9.
Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Dziekan G, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Gawande AA. Effect of A 19-item surgical safety checklist during urgent operations in a global patient population. Ann Surg. 2010;251:976–80.
• Resar R, Griffin FA, Haraden C, Nolan TW. Using care bundles to improve health care quality. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge. 2012. Great IHI paper on the origins of and theory behind bundles and bundle design.
Pop-Vicas AE, Abad C, Baubie K, Osman F, Heise C, Safdar N. Colorectal bundles for surgical site infection prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020;41:805–12.
Zywot A, Lau CSM, Stephen Fletcher H, Paul S. Bundles prevent surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1915–30.
Tanner J, Padley W, Assadian O, Leaper D, Kiernan M, Edmiston C. Do surgical care bundles reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? A systematic review and cohort meta-analysis of 8,515 patients. Surgery. 2015;158:66–77.
Vicentini C, Corradi A, Scacchi A, Elhadidy HSMA, Furmenti MF, Quattrocolo F, Zotti CM. Impact of a bundle on surgical site infections after hip arthroplasty: a cohort study in Italy (2012–2019). Int J Surg. 2020;82:8–13.
Bullock MW, Brown ML, Bracey DN, Langfitt MK, Shields JS, Lang JE. A bundle protocol to reduce the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections after total joint arthroplasty: a single-center experience. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:1067–73.
Gottschalk MB, Johnson JP, Sadlack CK, Mitchell PM. Decreased infection rates following total joint arthroplasty in a large county run teaching hospital: a single surgeon’s experience and possible solution. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:1610–6.
Matsen Ko LJ, Yoo JY, Maltenfort M, Hughes A, Smith EB, Sharkey PF. The effect of implementing a multimodal approach on the rates of periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:451–5.
Fernández-Prada M, Martínez-Ortega C, Revuelta-Mariño L, Menéndez-Herrero Á, Navarro-Gracia JF. Evaluation of the bundle “Zero Surgical Site Infection” to prevent surgical site infection in vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;41:160–8.
Hekman KE, Michel E, Blay E, Helenowski IB, Hoel AW. Evidence-based bundled quality improvement intervention for reducing surgical site infection in lower extremity vascular bypass procedures. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228:44–53.
Ta TM, Blazick E, Aranson N, Malka KT, Healey C, Eldrup-Jorgensen J, Nolan BW. Surgical site infection: a single-center experience with infection prevention bundle. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72: e79.
Rubeli SL, D’Alonzo D, Mueller B, Bartlomé N, Fankhauser H, Bucheli E, Conen A, Fandino J, Fux CA. Implementation of an infection prevention bundle is associated with reduced surgical site infections in cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;47:E3.
Okamura Y, Maruyama K, Fukuda S, Horikawa H, Sasaki N, Noguchi A, Nagane M, Shiokawa Y. Detailed standardized protocol to prevent cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection. J Neurosurg. 2020;132:755–9.
Hong B, Apedjinou A, Heissler HE, Chaib H, Lang JM, Al-Afif S, Krauss JK. Effect of a bundle approach on external ventricular drain-related infection. Acta Neurochir. 2021;163:1135–42.
Rojas-Lora M, Corral L, Zabaleta-Carvajal I, et al. External ventriculostomy-associated infection reduction after updating a care bundle. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2023;22:59.
Agarwal N, Agarwal P, Querry A, Mazurkiewicz A, Whiteside B, Marroquin OC, Koscumb SF, Wecht DA, Friedlander RM. Reducing surgical infections and implant costs via a novel paradigm of enhanced physician awareness. Neurosurgery. 2018;82:661–9.
Le C, Guppy KH, Axelrod YV, Hawk MW, Silverthorn J, Inacio MC, Akins PT. Lower complication rates for cranioplasty with peri-operative bundle. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;120:41–4.
Carter EB, Temming LA, Fowler S, Eppes C, Gross G, Srinivas SK, Macones GA, Colditz GA, Tuuli MG. Evidence-based bundles and cesarean delivery surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obs Gynecol. 2017;130:735–46.
Andiman SE, Xu X, Boyce JM, Ludwig EM, Rillstone HRW, Desai VB, Fan LL. Decreased surgical site infection rate in hysterectomy: effect of a gynecology-specific bundle. Obs Gynecol. 2018;131:991–9.
Caruso TJ, Wang EY, Schwenk H, Marquez JLS, Cahn J, Loh L, Shaffer J, Chen K, Wood M, Sharek PJ. A postoperative care bundle reduces surgical site infections in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgeries. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45:156–63.
Adler AL, Martin ET, Cohen G, Jeffries H, Gilbert M, Smith J, Zerr DM. A comprehensive intervention associated with reduced surgical site infections among pediatric cardiovascular surgery patients, including those with delayed closure. J Pediatr Infect Dis Soc. 2012;1:35–43.
Glenn ET, Harman JR, Marietta J, Lake J, Bailly DK, Ou Z, Griffiths ER, Ware AL. Impact of a surgical wound infection prevention bundle in pediatric cardiothoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115:126–34.
Schriefer J, Sanders J, Michels J, Wolcott K, Ruddy C, Hanson J. Implementation of a pediatric orthopaedic bundle to reduce surgical site infections. Orthop Nurs. 2017;36:49–59.
Ryan SL, Sen A, Staggers K, Luerssen TG, Jea A, Texas Children’s Hospital Spine Study Group. A standardized protocol to reduce pediatric spine surgery infection: a quality improvement initiative. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14:259–65.
Schaffzin JK, Simon K, Connelly BL, Mangano FT. Standardizing preoperative preparation to reduce surgical site infections among pediatric neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017;19:399–406.
Kestle JRW, Riva-Cambrin J, Wellons JC, et al. A standardized protocol to reduce cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection: the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network Quality Improvement Initiative. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8:22–9.
Ma N, Cameron A, Tivey D, Grae N, Roberts S, Morris A. Systematic review of a patient care bundle in reducing staphylococcal infections in cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2017;87:239–46.
Rozario D. Can surgical site infections be reduced with the adoption of a bundle of simultaneous initiatives? The use of NSQIP incidence data to follow multiple quality improvement interventions. Can J Surg. 2018;61:68–70.
• Wolfhagen N, Boldingh QJJ, Boermeester MA, De Jonge SW. Perioperative care bundles for the prevention of surgical-site infections: meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2022;109:933–42. Excellent meta-analysis on care bundle use in different types of surgery for SSI prevention.
Ruiz-Tovar J, Llavero C, Morales V, Gamallo C. Effect of the application of a bundle of three measures (intraperitoneal lavage with antibiotic solution, fascial closure with Triclosan-coated sutures and Mupirocin ointment application on the skin staples) on the surgical site infection after elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3495–501.
Anthony T, Murray BW, Sum-Ping JT, Lenkovsky F, Vornik VD, Parker BJ, McFarlin JE, Hartless K, Huerta S. Evaluating an evidence-based bundle for preventing surgical site infection: a randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2011;146:263–9.
Beldi G, Bisch-Knaden S, Banz V, Mühlemann K, Candinas D. Impact of intraoperative behavior on surgical site infections. Am J Surg. 2009;198:157–62.
Kwaan MR, Weight CJ, Carda SJ, Mills-Hokanson A, Wood E, Rivard-Hunt C, Argenta PA. Abdominal closure protocol in colorectal, gynecologic oncology, and urology procedures: a randomized quality improvement trial. Am J Surg. 2016;211:1077–83.
Calderwood MS, Yokoe DS, Murphy MV, Debartolo KO, Duncan K, Chan C, Schneider EC, Parry G, Goldmann D, Huang S. Effectiveness of a multistate quality improvement campaign in reducing risk of surgical site infections following hip and knee arthroplasty. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:374–81.
Al Salmi H, Elmahrouk A, Arafat AA, Edrees A, Alshehri M, Wali G, Zabani I, Mahdi NA, Jamjoom A. Implementation of an evidence-based practice to decrease surgical site infection after coronary artery bypass grafting. J Int Med Res. 2019;47:3491–501.
Cima R, Dankbar E, Lovely J, Pendlimari R, Aronhalt K, Nehring S, Hyke R, Tyndale D, Rogers J, Quast L. Colorectal surgery surgical site infection reduction program: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-driven multidisciplinary single-institution experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:23–33.
Weiser MR, Gonen M, Usiak S, et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary patient care bundle for reducing surgical-site infections. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1680–7.
Yamada K, Abe H, Higashikawa A, et al. Evidence-based care bundles for preventing surgical site infections in spinal instrumentation surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:1765–73.
Davidson C, Enns J, Dempster C, Lundeen S, Eppes C. Impact of a surgical site infection bundle on cesarean delivery infection rates. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48:555–9.
Dean HF, King E, Gane D, Hocking D, Rogers J, Pullyblank A. Introduction of a care bundle effectively and sustainably reduces patient-reported surgical site infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. J Hosp Infect. 2020;105:156–61.
Hodge AB, Thornton BA, Gajarski R, Hersey D, Cannon M, Naguib AN, Joy BF, McConnell PI. Quality improvement project in congenital cardiothoracic surgery patients: reducing surgical site infections. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2019;4: e188.
Johnson MP, Kim SJ, Langstraat CL, et al. Using bundled interventions to reduce surgical site infection after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Obs Gynecol. 2016;127:1135–44.
Lutfiyya W, Parsons D, Breen J. A colorectal “care bundle” to reduce surgical site infections in colorectal surgeries: a single-center experience. Perm J. 2012;16:10–6.
Nordin AB, Sales SP, Besner GE, Levitt MA, Wood RJ, Kenney BD. Effective methods to decrease surgical site infections in pediatric gastrointestinal surgery. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;53:52–9.
Rumberger LK, Vittetoe D, Cathey L, Bennett H, Heidel RE, Daley BJ. Improving outcomes in elective colorectal surgery: a single-institution retrospective review. Am Surg. 2016;82:325–30.
Toltzis P, O’Riordan M, Cunningham DJ, Ryckman FC, Bracke TM, Olivea J, Lyren A. A statewide collaborative to reduce pediatric surgical site infections. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e1174–80.
Dua A, Desai SS, Seabrook GR, Brown KR, Lewis BD, Rossi PJ, Edmiston CE, Lee CJ. The effect of Surgical Care Improvement Project measures on national trends on surgical site infections in open vascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1635–9.
Tomsic I, Chaberny IF, Heinze NR, Krauth C, Schock B, von Lengerke T. The role of bundle size for preventing surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: is more better? J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22:765–6.
ERAS Society. ERAS Society History. https://erassociety.org/about/history/. Accessed 7 Apr 2023.
• Lau CSM, Chamberlain RS. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs improve patient outcomes and recovery: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2017;41:899–913. Comprehensive meta-analysis on the effect of ERAS programs in different types of surgery showing better patient outcomes.
Albert H, Bataller W, Masroor N, et al. Infection prevention and enhanced recovery after surgery: A partnership for implementation of an evidence-based bundle to reduce colorectal surgical site infections. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:718–9.
Birchall CL, Maines JL, Kunselman AR, Stetter CM, Pauli JM. Enhanced recovery for cesarean delivery leads to no difference in length of stay, decreased opioid use and lower infection rates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35:10253–61.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PC: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ching, P.R. Care Bundles in Surgical Site Infection Prevention: A Narrative Review. Curr Infect Dis Rep (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-024-00837-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-024-00837-9