Advertisement

Does umbilical contamination correlate with colorectal surgery patient outcomes?

  • Justin T. Brady
  • Alison R. Althans
  • Madhuri Nishtala
  • Scott R. Steele
  • Sharon L. Stein
  • Harry L. Reynolds
  • Conor P. Delaney
  • Emily SteinhagenEmail author
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

Most preoperative assessment tools to evaluate risk for postoperative complications require multiple data points to be collected and can be logistically burdensome. This study evaluated if umbilical contamination, a simple bedside assessment, correlated with surgical outcomes.

Methods

A 6-point score to measure umbilical contamination was developed and applied prospectively to patients undergoing colorectal surgery at an academic medical center.

Results

There were 200 patients enrolled (mean age 58.1 ± 14.8; 56% female). The mean BMI was 28.6 ± 7.4. Indications for surgery included colon cancer (24%), rectal cancer (18%), diverticulitis (13.5%), and Crohn’s disease (12.5%). Umbilical contamination scores were 0 (23%, cleanest), 1 (26%), 2 (21%), 3 (24%), 4 (6%), and 5 (0%, dirtiest). Umbilical contamination did not correlate with preoperative functional status (p > 0.2). Umbilical contamination correlated with increased length of stay (rho = 0.19, p = 0.007) and postoperative complications (OR 1.3, 1.02–1.7, p = 0.04), but not readmission (p = 0.3) or discharge disposition (p > 0.2).

Conclusion

Sterile preparation of the abdomen is an important component of proper surgical technique and umbilical contamination correlates with increased postoperative complications.

Keywords

Colorectal surgery Outcomes Colon cancer Diverticulitis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge grant support from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC, 4UL1TR000439) for hosting the REDCap tool.

Author contributions

Justin T. Brady: Conception and design, data collection, data analysis, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of manuscript

Alison R. Althans: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Madhuri Nishtala: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Scott R. Steele: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Sharon L. Stein: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Harry L. Reynolds: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Conor P. Delaney: Conception and design, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

Emily Steinhagen: Conception and design, data collection, writing manuscript and critical revisions, approving final version of the manuscript

References

  1. 1.
    He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P (2015) An aging world. International Population Reports. 2016:11–12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity (2012) Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(10):E1–25Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fielding LP, Phillips RK, Hittinger R (1989) Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet 88(1):595–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brook R, McGlynn E, Cleary P (1996) Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 335:966–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manish C, Armstrong T, Britton G, Nash GF (2007) How and why do we measure surgical risk? J R Soc Med. 100:508–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, Syin D, Bandeen-Roche K, Patel P, Takenaga R, Devgan L, Holzmueller CG, Tian J, Fried LP (2010) Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 210(6):901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones KI, Doleman B, Scott S, Lund J N, Williams JP (2015) Simple psoas cross‐sectional area measurement is a quick and easy method to assess sarcopenia and predicts major surgical complications. Colorectal Dis 17:O20–O26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilimoria K, Liu Y, Paruch J, Zhou L, Kmiecik T, Ko C et al (2013) Surgical risk calculator : a decision aide and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 217(5):833–842Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farhat JS, Velanovich V, Falvo AJ, Horst HM, Swartz A, Patton JH et al (2012) Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(6):1526–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson TN, Wallace JI, Wu DS, Wiktor A, Pointer LF, Pfister SM et al (2011) Accumulated frailty characteristics predict postoperative discharge institutionalization in the geriatric patient. J Am Coll Surg 213(1):37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Digestive Disease and Surgical InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options