Cochrane · systematic review · CD012234
Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection
Norman, G, Atkinson, RA, Smith, TA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 8.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 8 · 66.7%Moderate 1 · 8.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
All irrigation compared with no irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection
Population: participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
SSI All irrigation vs no irrigation | RR 0.87 [0.68, 1.11] | 14 studies · 6106 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Wound dehiscence All irrigation vs no irrigation | RR 1.17 [0.44, 3.06] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events All irrigation vs no irrigation | RR 1.05 [0.76, 1.44] | 3 studies · 403 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events: abscess formation All irrigation vs no irrigation | RR 0.91 [0.54, 1.54] | 3 studies · 331 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Irrigation with antibacterial solution compared with irrigation with non‐antibacterial solution for prevention of surgical site infection
Population: participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
SSI Irrigation with antibacterial solution vs irrigation with non‐antibacterial solution | RR 0.57 [0.44, 0.75] | 30 studies · 5141 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Wound dehiscence Irrigation with antibacterial solution vs irrigation with non‐antibacterial solution | RR 1.26 [0.65, 2.45] | 3 studies · 660 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Irrigation with antibacterial solution vs irrigation with non‐antibacterial solution | RR 0.55 [0.22, 1.34] | 3 studies · 178 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events: abscess formation Irrigation with antibacterial solution vs irrigation with non‐antibacterial solution | RR 0.82 [0.42, 1.62] | 9 studies · 1309 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Standard irrigation compared with pulsatile irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection
Population: participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
SSI Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation | RR 0.34 [0.19, 0.62] | 2 studies · 484 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Wound dehiscence Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation | RR 0.31 [0.01, 7.55] | 1 study · 128 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation | RR 1.31 [0.87, 1.97] | 1 study · 128 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse events: abscess formation Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |