Wound Infection
- Author: Hemant Singhal, MD, MBBS, FRCSE, FRCS(C); Chief Editor: John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA more...
Background
History
The ancient Egyptians were the first civilization to have trained clinicians to treat physical aliments. Medical papyri, such as the Edwin Smith papyrus (circa 1600 BC) and the Ebers papyrus (circa 1534 BC), provided detailed information of management of disease, including wound management with the application of various potions and grease to assist healing.[1, 2] (See images below.)
Wound infection due to disturbed coagulopathy. This patient has a pacemaker (visible below right clavicular space) and had previous cardiac surgery (median sternotomy wound visible) for a rheumatic mitral valve disorder, which was replaced. The patient was taking anticoagulants preoperatively. Despite converting to low-molecular weight subcutaneous heparin treatment and establishing normal coagulation studies, she developed a postoperative hematoma with subsequent wound infection. She had the hematoma evacuated and was administered antibiotic treatment as guided by microbiological results, and the wound was left to heal by secondary intention.
Abscess secondary to a subclavian line. Hippocrates (Greek physician and surgeon, 460-377 BC), known as the father of medicine, used vinegar to irrigate open wounds and wrapped dressings around wounds to prevent further injury. His teachings remained unchallenged for centuries. Galen (Roman gladiatorial surgeon, 130-200 AD) was first to recognize that pus from wounds inflicted by the gladiators heralded healing (pus bonum et laudabile ["good and commendable pus"]). Unfortunately, this observation was misinterpreted, and the concept of pus preempting wound healing persevered well into the 18th century. The link between pus formation and healing was emphasized so strongly that foreign material was introduced into wounds to promote pus formation-suppuration. The concept of wound healing remained a mystery, as highlighted by the famous saying by Ambroise Paré (French military surgeon, 1510-1590), "I dressed the wound. God healed it."[3]
The scale of wound infections was most evident in times of war. During the American Civil War, erysipelas (necrotizing infection of soft tissue) and tetanus accounted for over 17,000 deaths, according to an anonymous source in 1883. Because compound fractures at the time almost invariably were associated with infection, amputation was the only option, despite a 25-90% risk of amputation stump infection.
Koch (Professor of Hygiene and Microbiology, Berlin, 1843-1910) first recognized the cause of infective foci as secondary to microbial growth in his 19th century postulates. Semmelweis (Austrian obstetrician, 1818-1865) demonstrated a 5-fold reduction in puerperal sepsis by hand washing between performing postmortem examinations and entering the delivery room. Joseph Lister (Professor of Surgery, London, 1827-1912) and Louis Pasteur (French bacteriologist, 1822-1895) revolutionized the entire concept of wound infection. Lister recognized that antisepsis could prevent infection.[4] In 1867, Lister placed carbolic acid into open fractures to sterilize the wound and to prevent sepsis and hence the need for amputation. In 1871, Lister began to use carbolic spray in the operating room to reduce contamination. However, the concept of wound suppuration persevered even among eminent surgeons, such as John Hunter, 1728-1793.[5]
World War I (WWI) resulted in new types of wounds from high-velocity bullet and shrapnel injuries coupled with contamination by the mud from the trenches. Antoine Depage (Belgian military surgeon, 1862-1925) reintroduced wound debridement and delayed wound closure and relied on microbiological assessment of wound brushings as guidance for the timing of secondary wound closure.[6] Alexander Fleming (microbiologist, London, 1881-1955) performed many of his bacteriological studies during WWI and is credited with the discovery of penicillin.
As late as the 19th century, aseptic surgery was not routine practice. Sterilization of instruments began in the 1880s as did the wearing of gowns, masks, and gloves. Halsted (Professor of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, United States, 1852-1922) introduced rubber gloves to his scrub nurse (and future wife) because she was developing skin irritation from the chemicals used to disinfect instruments. The routine use of gloves was introduces by Halsted's student J. Bloodgood.
Penicillin first was used clinically in 1940 by Howard Florey. With the use of antibiotics, a new era in the management of wound infections commenced. Unfortunately, eradication of the infective plague affecting surgical wounds has not ended because of the insurgence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains and the nature of more adventurous surgical intervention in immunocompromised patients and in implant surgery.
Pathophysiology
Wound healing is a continuum of complex interrelated biological processes at the molecular level. Healing is divided into the following phases for descriptive purposes: inflammatory phase, proliferative phase, and maturation phase.
The inflammatory phase commences as soon as tissue integrity is disrupted by injury; this begins the coagulation cascade to limit bleeding. Platelets are the first of the cellular components that aggregate to the wound, and, as a result of their degranulation (platelet reaction), they release several cytokines (or paracrine growth factors). These cytokines include platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF). Serotonin is also released, which, together with histamine (released by mast cells), induces a reversible opening of the junctions between the endothelial cells, allowing the passage of neutrophils and monocytes (which become macrophages) to the site of injury.
This large cellular movement to the injury site is induced by cytokines secreted by the platelets (chemotaxis) and by further chemotactic cytokines secreted by the macrophages themselves once at the site of injury. These include transforming growth factor alpha (TGF-alpha) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta). Consequently, an inflammatory exudate that contains red blood cells, neutrophils, macrophages, and plasma proteins, including coagulation cascade proteins and fibrin strands, fills the wound in a matter of hours. Macrophages not only scavenge but they also are central to the wound healing process because of their cytokine secretion.
The proliferative phase begins as the cells that migrate to the site of injury, such as fibroblasts, epithelial cells, and vascular endothelial cells, start to proliferate and the cellularity of the wound increases. The cytokines involved in this phase include FGFs, particularly FGF-2 (previously known as basic FGF), which stimulates angiogenesis and epithelial cell and fibroblast proliferation. The marginal basal cells at the edge of the wound migrate across the wound, and, within 48 hours, the entire wound is epithelialized. In the depth of the wound, the number of inflammatory cells decreases with the increase in stromal cells, such as fibroblasts and endothelial cells, which, in turn, continue to secrete cytokines. Cellular proliferation continues with the formation of extracellular matrix proteins, including collagen and new capillaries (angiogenesis). This process is variable in length and may last several weeks.
In the maturation phase, the dominant feature is collagen. The dense bundle of fibers, characteristic of collagen, is the predominant constituent of the scar. Wound contraction occurs to some degree in primary closed wounds but is a pronounced feature in wounds left to close by secondary intention. The cells responsible for wound contraction are called myofibroblasts, which resemble fibroblasts but have cytoplasmic actin filaments responsible for contraction.
The wound continuously undergoes remodeling to try to achieve a state similar to that prior to injury. The wound has 70-80% of its original tensile strength at 3-4 months postoperative.
Epidemiology
Frequency
United States
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are not an extinct entity; they account for 14-16% of the estimated 2 million nosocomial infections affecting hospitalized patients in the United States.[7]
International
Internationally, the frequency of SSI is difficult to monitor because criteria for diagnosis might not be standardized. A survey sponsored by the World Health Organization demonstrated a prevalence of nosocomial infections varying from 3-21%, with wound infections accounting for 5-34% of the total.[8] The 2002 survey report by the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Service (NINSS), which covers the period between October 1997 and September 2001, indicates that the incidence of hospital acquired infection related to surgical wounds in the United Kingdom is as high as 10% and costs the National Health Service in the United Kingdom approximately 1 billion pounds (1.8 billion dollars) annually.
Collated data on the incidence of wound infections probably underestimate true incidence because most wound infections occur when the patient is discharged, and these infections may be treated in the community without hospital notification.
Mortality/Morbidity
SSIs are associated not only with increased morbidity but also with mortality. Seventy-seven percent of the deaths of surgical patients were related to surgical wound infection.[9] Kirkland et al calculated a relative risk of death of 2.2 attributable to SSIs, compared to matched surgical patients without infection.[10]
Breasted D. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. University of Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1930.
Bryan PW. The Papyrus Ebers. London/Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1883.
Cohen IK. A Brief History of Wound Healing. Yardley, Pa: Oxford Clinical Communications Inc; 1998.
Lister J. On a new method of treating compound fractures. Lancet. 1867;1:326-329,387-389,507-509.
Qvist G. Hunterian Oration, 1979. Some controversial aspects of John Hunter's life and work. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. Jul 1979;61(4):309-11. [Medline].
Helling TS, Daon E. In Flanders fields: the Great War, Antoine Depage, and the resurgence of débridement. Ann Surg. Aug 1998;228(2):173-81. [Medline].
Emori TG, Gaynes RP. An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbiology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. Oct 1993;6(4):428-42. [Medline].
Mayon-White RT, Ducel G, Kereselidze T, et al. An international survey of the prevalence of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect. Feb 1988;11 Suppl A:43-8. [Medline].
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Apr 1999;20(4):250-78; quiz 279-80. [Medline].
Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Nov 1999;20(11):725-30. [Medline].
National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. NNIS report, data summary from October 1986-April 1996, issued May 1996. A report from the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control. Oct 1996;24(5):380-8. [Medline].
Di Leo A, Piffer S, Ricci F, et al. Surgical site infections in an Italian surgical ward: a prospective study. Surg Infect (Larchmt). Aug 18 2009;[Medline].
National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. NNIS report, data summary from January 1992 to June 2002, issued August 2002. Am J Infect Control. Dec 2002;30(8):458-75. [Medline].
Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg. Nov 1975;130(5):579-84. [Medline].
Hsiao CH, Chuang CC, Tan HY, Ma DH, Lin KK, Chang CJ, et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Ocular Infection: A 10-Year Hospital-Based Study. Ophthalmology. Dec 14 2011;[Medline].
Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am. Feb 1980;60(1):27-40. [Medline].
Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery. Jul 1961;50:161-8. [Medline].
Barchitta M, Matranga D, Quattrocchi A, Bellocchi P, Ruffino M, Basile G, et al. Prevalence of surgical site infections before and after the implementation of a multimodal infection control programme. J Antimicrob Chemother. Nov 29 2011;[Medline].
Gupta R, Sinnett D, Carpenter R, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for post-operative wound infection in clean elective breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. Jun 2000;26(4):363-6. [Medline].
Platt R, Zucker JR, Zaleznik DF, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and wound infection following breast surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother. Feb 1993;31 Suppl B:43-8. [Medline].
Woodfield JC, Beshay N, van Rij AM. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials assessing the prophylactic use of ceftriaxone. A study of wound, chest, and urinary infections. World J Surg. Aug 2 2009;[Medline].
Woods RK, Dellinger EP. Current guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis of surgical wounds. Am Fam Physician. Jun 1998;57(11):2731-40. [Medline].
Mahmoud NN, Turpin RS, Yang G, et al. Impact of surgical site infections on length of stay and costs in selected colorectal procedures. Surg Infect (Larchmt). Aug 26 2009;[Medline].
Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med. Sep 16 1991;91(3B):152S-157S. [Medline].
Anesthesiology. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology. 1963;24:111.
Pearson ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Part I. Intravascular device-related infections: an overview. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. Aug 1996;24(4):262-77. [Medline].
Mermel LA, Farr BM, Sherertz RJ, et al. Guidelines for the management of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. May 1 2001;32(9):1249-72. [Medline].
Dettenkofer M, Wilson C, Gratwohl A, et al. Skin disinfection with octenidine dihydrochloride for central venous catheter site care: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin Microbiol Infect. Aug 17 2009;[Medline].
Haley RW, Schaberg DR, Crossley KB, et al. Extra charges and prolongation of stay attributable to nosocomial infections: a prospective interhospital comparison. Am J Med. Jan 1981;70(1):51-8. [Medline].
Eagye KJ, Kim A, Laohavaleeson S, et al. Surgical site infections: does inadequate antibiotic therapy affect patient outcomes?. Surg Infect (Larchmt). Aug 2009;10(4):323-31. [Medline].
Baquero F. Gram-positive resistance: challenge for the development of new antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. May 1997;39 Suppl A:1-6. [Medline].
Belda FJ, Aguilera L, Garcia de la Asuncion J, et al. Supplemental perioperative oxygen and the risk of surgical wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Oct 26 2005;294(16):2035-42. [Medline].
Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. Jun 15 2004;38(12):1706-15. [Medline].
Buggy D. Can anaesthetic management influence surgical-wound healing?. Lancet. Jul 29 2000;356(9227):355-7. [Medline].
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevent antimicrobial resistance in health care settings. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/healthcare/problem.htm.
Coello R, Charlett A, Wilson J, et al. Adverse impact of surgical site infections in English hospitals. J Hosp Infect. Jun 2005;60(2):93-103. [Medline].
Gaynes RP. Surgical-site infections (SSI) and the NNIS Basic SSI Risk Index, part II: room for improvement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. May 2001;22(5):266-7. [Medline].
Heinzelmann M, Scott M, Lam T. Factors predisposing to bacterial invasion and infection. Am J Surg. Feb 2002;183(2):179-90. [Medline].
Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med. May 9 1996;334(19):1209-15. [Medline].
Latham R, Lancaster AD, Covington JF, et al. The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical-site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Oct 2001;22(10):607-12. [Medline].
Nathens AB, Dellinger EP. Surgical site infections. Curr Treatment Options Infect Dis. 2000;2:347-348.
Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Service (NINSS). Surgical site infection in English hospitals: a national surveillance and quality improvement program. Public Health Laboratory Service. 2002.
- Table 1. Pathogens Commonly Associated with Wound Infections and Frequency of Occurrence[11]
- Table 2: Surgical Wound Classification and Subsequent Risk of Infection (If No Antibiotics Used)[11, 16]
- Table 3. Recommendations for Prophylactic Antibiotics as Indicated by Probable Infective Microorganism Involved[11, 22]
- Table 4. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification of Physical Status[25]
- Table 5. Predictive Percentage of SSI Occurrence by Wound Type and Risk Index*[24]
- Table 6. Data Support Recommendations
| Pathogen | Frequency (%) |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 20 |
| Coagulase-negative staphylococci | 14 |
| Enterococci | 12 |
| Escherichia coli | 8 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 8 |
| Enterobacter species | 7 |
| Proteus mirabilis | 3 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 3 |
| Other streptococci | 3 |
| Candida albicans | 3 |
| Group D streptococci | 2 |
| Other gram-positive aerobes | 2 |
| Bacteroides fragilis | 2 |
| Classification | Description | Infective Risk (%) |
| Clean (Class I) | Uninfected operative wound No acute inflammation Closed primarily Respiratory, gastrointestinal, biliary, and urinary tracts not entered No break in aseptic technique Closed drainage used if necessary | < 2 |
| Clean-contaminated (Class II) | Elective entry into respiratory, biliary, gastrointestinal, urinary tracts and with minimal spillage No evidence of infection or major break in aseptic technique Example: appendectomy | < 10 |
| Contaminated (Class III) | Nonpurulent inflammation present Gross spillage from gastrointestinal tract Penetrating traumatic wounds < 4 hours Major break in aseptic technique | About 20 |
| Dirty-infected (Class IV) | Purulent inflammation present Preoperative perforation of viscera Penetrating traumatic wounds >4 hours | About 40 |
| Operation | Expected Pathogens | Recommended Antibiotic |
| Orthopedic surgery (including prosthesis insertion), cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, breast surgery, noncardiac thoracic procedures | S aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Appendectomy, biliary procedures | Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Colorectal surgery | Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes | Cefotetan 1-2 g or cefoxitin 1-2 g plus oral neomycin 1 g and oral erythromycin 1 g (start 19 h preoperatively for 3 doses) |
| Gastroduodenal surgery | Gram-negative bacilli and streptococci | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Vascular surgery | S aureus, Staphylococcusepidermidis, gram-negative bacilli | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Head and neck surgery | S aureus, streptococci, anaerobes and streptococci present in an oropharyngeal approach | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Obstetric and gynecological procedures | Gram-negative bacilli, enterococci, anaerobes, group B streptococci | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| Urology procedures | Gram-negative bacilli | Cefazolin 1-2 g |
| ASA Score | Characteristics |
| 1 | Normal healthy patient |
| 2 | Patient with mild systemic disease |
| 3 | Patient with a severe systemic disease that limits activity but is not incapacitating |
| 4 | Patient with an incapacitating systemic disease that is a constant threat to life |
| 5 | Moribund patient not expected to survive 24 hours with or without operation |
| At Risk Index | Predictive Percentage of SSI |
| 0 | 1.5 |
| 1 | 2.9 |
| 2 | 6.8 |
| 3 | 13.0 |
| *Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recommendations (partial) for the prevention of SSIs, April 1999 (non–drug based) | |
| Category | Description |
| Category IA | Well designed, experimental, strong; recommended (Category I*) clinical or epidemiological best practice; should be studies; adapted by all practices |
| Category IB | Some experimental, fairly strong; recommended (Category II*) clinical or epidemiological best practice; should be studies and theoretical grounds; adapted by all practices |
| Category II | Fewer scientific supporting data; limited to specific nosocomial (Category III*) problems |
| No recommendation | Insufficient scientific personnel judgment for use (Category III*) supporting data |
| *Previous nomenclature of 1992 CDC guidelines | |

