| 2. |
- Kasina, P., et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of three distinct clean air suits to decrease the bacterial load in the operating room: An observational study
- 2016
-
In: Patient Safety in Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1754-9493. ; 10:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- © 2016 Kasina et al. Background: Lowering air-borne bacteria counts in the operating room is essential in prevention of surgical site infections in orthopaedic joint replacement surgery. This is mainly achieved by decreasing bacteria counts through dilution, with appropriate ventilation and by limiting the bacteria carrying skin particles, predominantly shed by the personnel. The aim of this study was to investigate if a single use polypropylene clothing system or a reusable polyester clothing system could offer similar air quality in the operating room as a mobile laminar airflow device-assisted reusable cotton/polyester clothing system. Methods: Prospective observational study design, comparing the performance of three Clean Air Suits by measuring Colony Forming Units (CFU)/m3 of air during elective hip and knee arthroplasties, performed at a large university-affiliated hospital. The amount of CFU/m3 of air was measured during 37 operations of which 13 were performed with staff dressed in scrub suits made of a reusable mixed material (69 % cotton, 30 % polyester, 1 % carbon fibre) accompanied by two mobile laminar airflow units. During 24 procedures no mobile laminar airflow units were used, 13 with staff using a reusable olefin fabric clothing (woven polypropylene) and 11 with staff dressed in single-use suits (non-woven spunbonded polypropylene). Air from the operating field was sampled through a filter, by a Sartorius MD8, and bacterial colonies were counted after incubation. There were 6-8 measurements from each procedure, in total 244 measurements. Statistical analysis was performed by Mann-Whitney U-test. Results: The single-use polypropylene suit reduced the amount of CFU/m3 to a significantly lower level than both other clothing systems. Conclusion: Single-use polypropylene clothing systems can replace mobile laminar airflow unit-assisted reusable mixed material-clothing systems. Measurements in standardized laboratory settings can only serve as guidelines as environments in real operation settings present a much more difficult challenge.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kasina, P., et al.
(author)
-
Postoperative Thromboprophylaxis With New Oral Anticoagulants is Superior to LMWH in Hip Arthroplasty Surgery: Findings from the Swedish Registry
- 2019
-
In: Clinical orthopaedics and related research. - 1528-1132. ; 477:6, s. 1335-1343
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although the use of thromboprophylaxis is well established, there is no consensus on the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen after THA; large, population-based studies offer an opportunity to examine this problem in a robust way that can complement results from randomized trials. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from a large national registry, we asked: (1) Is there any difference between low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and new oral anticoagulants in preventing symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), after THA? (2) Are there any differences in safety parameters, such as bleeding, reoperations and mortality, between LMWH and new oral anticoagulants? METHODS: Between 2008 and 2012, 78,066 THAs were performed in Sweden. This study evaluated 32,663 (42%) of them, selected through the merger of several national registries. These patients underwent unilateral THA due to primary osteoarthritis. They had not experienced any venous thromboembolic events 5 years before the index operation and were not prescribed potent antithrombotic agents, of any type, in the 6 months before the index operation. Additionally, their postoperative thromboprophylaxis was confirmed in a national registry by purchase of prescribed medications. We divided the cohort into two groups: those patients who received new oral anticoagulants (5752, 18%) and those who received LMWH (26,881, 82%) as postoperative thromboprophylaxis. Our primary endpoints were the frequencies of symptomatic DVT and symptomatic PE within 3 months of surgery. Our secondary comparison was a between-group comparison of bleeding (by way of diagnostic coding), reoperation, and mortality within 3 months of surgery. Odds ratios (OR) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as pooled results for the two groups after adjustment for duration of thromboprophylaxis (short or extended for at least 28 days), year of the index operation, Elixhauser comorbidity index, sex, age and previous treatment with platelet aggregation inhibitors. RESULTS: The risk of symptomatic DVT was lower in the group that received new oral anticoagulants than the group that received LMWH (0.3% versus 0.6%, OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76; p = 0.026). The risk of symptomatic PE was lower in the group that received new oral anticoagulants than the group that received LMWH (0.1% versus 0.4%, OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.69; p = 0.005). There was no difference in the risk of bleeding (by way of diagnostic coding) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28; p = 0.688), reoperation (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44; p = 0.860) or mortality (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.31-1.88; p = 0.883) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: New oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of symptomatic DVT and symptomatic PE in this large, registry study, and we observed no differences in the risk of bleeding, reoperation, or death between the groups. Although we were able to control for a number of potential confounding variables, we cannot ascertain the indications that drove the prescription decisions in this setting, and there were important between-group differences in terms of duration of thromboprophylaxis (new oral anticoagulants generally were used for a longer period of time after surgery). Future studies, preferably large randomized trials with pragmatic inclusion criteria, to analyze symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE and death are needed to confirm or refute our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
|
|
