Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery on the Risk for Surgical Site Infections: Results From the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database | Minimally Invasive Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Sands  KE, Yokoe  DS, Hooper  DC,  et al.  Detection of postoperative surgical-site infections: comparison of health plan–based surveillance with hospital-based programs.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(10):741-743. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
 National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1996, issued May 1996: a report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System.  Am J Infect Control. 1996;24(5):380-388.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Daneman  N, Lu  H, Redelmeier  DA.  Discharge after discharge: predicting surgical site infections after patients leave hospital.  J Hosp Infect. 2010;75(3):188-194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rosenberger  LH, Politano  AD, Sawyer  RG.  The Surgical Care Improvement Project and prevention of post-operative infection, including surgical site infection.  Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011;12(3):163-168.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Dobson  MW, Geisler  D, Fazio  V, Remzi  F, Hull  T, Vogel  J.  Minimally invasive surgical wound infections: laparoscopic surgery decreases morbidity of surgical site infections and decreases the cost of wound care.  Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(7):811-815. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Tollefson  MK, Frank  I, Gettman  MT.  Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy decreases the incidence and morbidity of surgical site infections.  Urology. 2011;78(4):827-831.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Varela  JE, Wilson  SE, Nguyen  NT.  Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical-site infections compared with open surgery.  Surg Endosc. 2010;24(2):270-276.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Tuggle  KR, Ortega  G, Bolorunduro  OB,  et al.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in complicated appendicitis: a review of the NSQIP database.  J Surg Res. 2010;163(2):225-228.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Hermsen  ED, Hinze  T, Sayles  H, Sholtz  L, Rupp  ME.  Incidence of surgical site infection associated with robotic surgery.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):822-827. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Trinh  QD, Schmitges  J, Sun  M,  et al.  Morbidity and mortality of radical prostatectomy differs by insurance status.  Cancer. 2012;118(7):1803-1810.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Davenport  DL, Holsapple  CW, Conigliaro  J.  Assessing surgical quality using administrative and clinical data sets: a direct comparison of the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Database and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set.  Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(5):395-402. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Cima  RR, Lackore  KA, Nehring  SA,  et al.  How best to measure surgical quality? comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institution.  Surgery. 2011;150(5):943-949.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Koch  CG, Li  L, Hixson  E, Tang  A, Phillips  S, Henderson  JM.  What are the real rates of postoperative complications: elucidating inconsistencies between administrative and clinical data sources.  J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(5):798-805.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Tsui  C, Klein  R, Garabrant  M.  Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy.  Surg Endosc. 2013;27(7):2253-2257.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
D’Agostino  RB  Jr.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.  Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265-2281.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Ho  DE, Imai  K, King  G, Stuart  E.  MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference.  J Stat Softw. 2011;42(8):1-28. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v42/i08/paper. Accessed July 10, 2013.Google Scholar
17.
Hemani  ML, Lepor  H.  Skin preparation for the prevention of surgical site infection: which agent is best?  Rev Urol. 2009;11(4):190-195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Perencevich  EN, Sands  KE, Cosgrove  SE, Guadagnoli  E, Meara  E, Platt  R.  Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9(2):196-203.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
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(11):725-730. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Poulsen  KB, Bremmelgaard  A, Sørensen  AI, Raahave  D, Petersen  JV.  Estimated costs of postoperative wound infections: a case-control study of marginal hospital and Social Security costs.  Epidemiol Infect. 1994;113(2):283-295.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Nguyen  NT, Lee  SL, Goldman  C,  et al.  Comparison of pulmonary function and postoperative pain after laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized trial.  J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(4):469-477.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Nguyen  NT, Goldman  CD, Ho  HS, Gosselin  RC, Singh  A, Wolfe  BM.  Systemic stress response after laparoscopic and open gastric bypass.  J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194(5):557-567.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Wichmann  MW, Hüttl  TP, Winter  H,  et al.  Immunological effects of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: a prospective clinical study.  Arch Surg. 2005;140(7):692-697.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Whelan  RL, Franklin  M, Holubar  SD,  et al.  Postoperative cell mediated immune response is better preserved after laparoscopic vs open colorectal resection in humans.  Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):972-978.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Mohiuddin  K, Swanson  SJ.  Maximizing the benefit of minimally invasive surgery.  J Surg Oncol. 2013;108(5):315-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Fullum  TM, Ladapo  JA, Borah  BJ, Gunnarsson  CL.  Comparison of the clinical and economic outcomes between open and minimally invasive appendectomy and colectomy: evidence from a large commercial payer database.  Surg Endosc. 2010;24(4):845-853.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Miskovic  D, Ni  M, Wyles  SM, Tekkis  P, Hanna  GB.  Learning curve and case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and international multicenter analysis of 4852 cases.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(12):1300-1310.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Keller  DS, Hashemi  L, Lu  M, Delaney  CP.  Short-term outcomes for robotic colorectal surgery by provider volume.  J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):1603-1609.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.390. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
October 2014

Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery on the Risk for Surgical Site Infections: Results From the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database

Author Affiliations
  • 1Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2Urological Research Institute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
  • 3Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 4Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
  • 5Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Surg. 2014;149(10):1039-1044. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.292
Abstract

Importance  Surgical site infection (SSI) represents the second most common cause of hospital-acquired infection and the most common type of infection in patients undergoing surgery. However, evidence is scarce regarding the effect of the surgical approach (open surgery vs minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) on the risk for SSIs.

Objective  To evaluate the role of the surgical approach on the risk for SSIs in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing surgery across different specialties.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database is a national, prospective perioperative database specifically developed to assess quality of surgical care. We queried the database from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2011, for patients undergoing appendectomy (n = 97 780), colectomy (n = 118 407), hysterectomy (n = 26 639), or radical prostatectomy (n = 11 183).

Exposures  Thirty-day SSIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures  We abstracted the data on 30-day SSIs and compared patients undergoing open procedures and MIS using propensity score matching. Logistic regression analyses of the matched cohorts tested the association between the surgical approach and risk for SSIs.

Results  The overall 30-day rates of SSIs were 5.4% for appendectomy, 12.1% for colectomy, 2.8% for hysterectomy, and 1.7% for prostatectomy. After propensity score matching, MIS was associated with lower rates of postoperative SSIs in patients undergoing MIS vs open procedures for appendectomy (3.8% vs 7.0%; P < .001), colectomy (9.3% vs 15.0%; P < .001), hysterectomy (1.8% vs 3.9%; P < .001), and radical prostatectomy (1.0% vs 2.4%; P < .001). In logistic regression analyses, MIS was associated with lower odds of SSIs in patients treated with appendectomy (odds ratio [OR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.48-0.58]; P < .001), colectomy (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.55-0.61]; P < .001), hysterectomy (OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.37-0.53]; P < .001), and radical prostatectomy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.25-0.61]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  The proportion of patients developing SSIs within 30 days after surgery can be substantial and depends on the type of surgery. Minimally invasive surgery is significantly associated with reduced odds of SSIs. This advantage should be considered when assessing the overall benefits of minimally invasive techniques.

×