Incidence of surgical site infection following caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Khalid B M Saeed, Richard A Greene, Paul Corcoran, Sinéad M O'Neill, Khalid B M Saeed, Richard A Greene, Paul Corcoran, Sinéad M O'Neill

Abstract

Introduction: Caesarean section (CS) rates have increased globally during the past three decades. Surgical site infection (SSI) following CS is a common cause of morbidity with reported rates of 3-15%. SSI represents a substantial burden to the health system including increased length of hospitalisation and costs of postdischarge care. The definition of SSI varies with the postoperative follow-up period among different health systems, resulting in differences in the reporting of SSI incidence. We propose to conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled estimate for the overall incidence of SSI following CS.

Methods and analysis: We will perform a comprehensive search to identify all potentially relevant published studies on the incidence of SSI following CS reported from 1992 in the English language. Electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus will be searched using a detailed search strategy. Following study selection, full-text paper retrieval, data extraction and synthesis, we will appraise study quality and risk of bias and assess heterogeneity. Incidence data will be combined where feasible in a meta-analysis using Stata software and fixed-effects or random-effects models as appropriate. This systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required as this review will use published data. The review will evaluate the overall incidence of SSI following CS and will provide the first quantitative estimate of the magnitude of SSI. It will serve as a benchmark for future studies, identify research gaps and remaining challenges, and emphasise the need for appropriate prevention and control measures for SSI post-CS. A manuscript reporting the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

Trial registration number: CRD42015024426.

Keywords: Caesarean Section; Incidence; Pregnancy; Surgical Site Infection; meta-analysis, Systematic review; EPIDEMIOLOGY; OBSTETRICS.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

References

    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA et al. . Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x
    1. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Stocks C. Most Frequent Procedures Performed in U.S. Hospitals, 2010. HCUP Statistical Brief #149. 2013.
    1. Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis HaSCIC. NHS Maternity Statistics—England, 2014–15.
    1. Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L et al. . 2013. Australia's mothers and babies 2011. Perinatal statistics series no. 28. Cat. no. PER 59 Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, 2011.
    1. Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K. Trends in maternal request caesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:1506–16. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000242564.79349.b7
    1. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27–29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1386–97.
    1. Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA et al. . Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary caesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1264–9. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000287294.89148.23
    1. Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L et al. . Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:791–800.
    1. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ et al. . CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–8.
    1. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG et al. . CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16: 128–40.
    1. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–32. 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002
    1. Wilson AP, Treasure T, Sturridge MF et al. . A scoring method (ASEPSIS) for postoperative wound infections for use in clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Lancet 1986;1:311–13.
    1. Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J et al. . The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1–194.
    1. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM et al. . Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse caesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:477–84; discussion 85–6 10.1086/587810
    1. Lakhan P, Doherty J, Jones M et al. . A systematic review of maternal intrinsic risk factors associated with surgical site infection following caesarean sections. Healthc Infect 2010;15:35–41.
    1. Beattie PG, Rings TR, Hunter MF et al. . Risk factors for wound infection following caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;34:398–402.
    1. Noyes N, Berkeley AS, Freedman K et al. . Incidence of postpartum endomyometritis following single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with either ampicillin/sulbactam, cefazolin, or cefotetan in high-risk caesarean section patients. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1998;6:220–3. 10.1155/S1064744998000441
    1. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM et al. . Risk factors for endometritis after low transverse caesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:69–77. 10.1086/649018
    1. Assawapalanggool S, Kasatpibal N, Sirichotiyakul S et al. . Risk factors for caesarean surgical site infections at a Thai-Myanmar border hospital. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:990–5. 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.01.031
    1. Farret TCF, Dallé J, da Silva Monteiro V et al. . Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in a Brazilian Women's Hospital: a case–control study. Braz J Infect Dis 2015;19:113–17. 10.1016/j.bjid.2014.09.009
    1. Gong SP, Guo HX, Zhou HZ et al. . Morbidity and risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in Guangdong Province, China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38:509–15. 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01746.x
    1. Killian CA, Graffunder EM, Vinciguerra TJ et al. . Risk factors for surgical-site infections following caesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:613–17. 10.1086/501831
    1. Shree R, Park SY, Beigi RH et al. . Surgical site infection following cesarean delivery: patient, provider, and procedure-specific risk factors. Am J Perinatol 2016;33:157–64. 10.1055/s-0035-1563548
    1. Lewis SS, Moehring RW, Chen LF et al. . Assessing the relative burden of hospital-acquired infections in a network of community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1229–30. 10.1086/673443
    1. Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T et al. . Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012;119:1324–33. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03452.x
    1. Jenks PJ, Laurent M, McQuarry S et al. . Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection (SSI) and predicted financial consequences of elimination of SSI from an English hospital. J Hosp Infect 2014;86:24–33. 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.09.012
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    1. Duggal N, Poddatorri V, Noroozkhani S et al. . Perioperative oxygen supplementation and surgical site infection after caesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:79–84. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318297ec6c
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. (accessed 8 Jun 2016).
    1. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA et al. . Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18:12–18. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. 10.1002/sim.1186
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al. . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe