Wound Infection Treatment & Management
- Author: Hemant Singhal, MD, MBBS, FRCSE, FRCS(C); Chief Editor: John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA more...
Medical Care
The use of antibiotics was a milestone in the effort to prevent wound infection. The concept of prophylactic antibiotics was established in the 1960s when experimental data established that antibiotics had to be in the circulatory system at a high enough dose at the time of incision to be effective.[17, 18]
General agreement exists that prophylactic antibiotics are indicated for clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds (see Table 2). Antibiotics for dirty wounds are part of the treatment because infection is established already. Clean procedures might be an issue of debate. No doubt exists regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics in clean procedures in which prosthetic devices are inserted because infection in these cases would be disastrous for the patient. However, other clean procedures (eg, breast surgery) may be a matter of contention.[19, 20]
Criteria for the use of systemic preventive antibiotics in surgical procedures are as follows:
- Systemic preventive antibiotics should be used in the following cases:
- A high risk of infection is associated with the procedure (eg, colon resection).
- Consequences of infection are unusually severe (eg, total joint replacement).
- The patient has a high NNIS risk index.
- The antibiotic should be administered preoperatively but as close to the time of the incision as is clinically practical. Antibiotics should be administered before induction of anesthesia in most situations.
- The antibiotic selected should have activity against the pathogens likely to be encountered in the procedure.
- Postoperative administration of preventive systemic antibiotics beyond 24 hours has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk of SSIs.
Qualities of prophylactic antibiotics include efficacy against predicted bacterial microorganisms most likely to cause infection, good tissue penetration to reach wound involved, cost effectiveness, and minimal disturbance to intrinsic body flora (eg, gut).[21]
The timing of administration is critically important because the concentration of the antibiotic should be at therapeutic levels at the time of incision, during the surgical procedure, and, ideally, for a few hours postoperatively.[11] Administration of the antibiotic is by IV; 30 minutes prior to incision is the recommended time.[22] Antibiotics should not be administered more than 2 hours prior to surgery. Colorectal surgical prophylaxis additionally requires bowel clearance with enemas and oral nonabsorbable antimicrobial agents 1 hour before surgery.[23] High-risk cesarean surgical cases require antibiotic administration as soon as the clamping of the umbilical cord is completed.[11] See Table 3 for specific antibiotics recommended.
Table 3. Recommendations for Prophylactic Antibiotics as Indicated by Probable Infective Microorganism Involved[11, 22] (Open Table in a new window)
| 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 |
The current risk index used to predict the risk of developing a wound infection is the NNIS system of the CDC.[11] The risk index category is established by the added total of the risk factors present at the time of surgery. For each risk factor present, a point is allocated; risk index values range from 0-3. This risk index is a better predictor for SSIs than the surgical wound classification (see Table 2 and Table 5).[24]
The NNIS risk index integrates the 3 main determinants of infection, namely, bacteria, local environment, and systemic host defenses (patient health status). The risk index does not include other risk variables, like smoking, tissue oxygen tension, glucose control, shock, and maintenance of normothermia. All these factors are relevant for clinicians but difficult to monitor and fit into a manageable risk assessment.
The elements constituting this index are as follows:
- Preoperative patient physical status assessed by the anesthesiologist and classified by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (see Table 4) as greater than 3
- Operation status as either contaminated or dirty-infected (see Table 2)
- Operation lasting longer than T hours, where T is the 75th percentile of the specific operation performed
Table 4. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification of Physical Status[25] (Open Table in a new window)
| 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 |
Table 5. Predictive Percentage of SSI Occurrence by Wound Type and Risk Index*[24] (Open Table in a new window)
| 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) | |
Table 6. Data Support Recommendations (Open Table in a new window)
| 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 | |
Preoperative patient preparation
- Category IA criteria
- Identify and treat all infections remote from the surgical site. Delay operation in elective cases until infection is treated.
- Do not remove hair unless it infringes on the surgical field. If hair removal is required, it should be removed immediately before operation and preferably with electric clippers.
- Category IB criteria
- Patients should cease tobacco consumption in any form for at least 1 month preoperatively.
- Optimize blood glucose level and avoid hyperglycemia.
- Patients are to shower/bathe with antiseptic on at least the night before surgery.
- Necessary blood products may be administered.
- Category II criteria: Provided preoperative patient preparation is adequate, minimize preoperative hospital stay.
- No recommendation
- Gradual reduction/discontinuation steroid use before elective surgery
- Enhanced nutritional intake solely to prevent SSI
- Preoperative topical antibiotic use in nares to prevent SSI
- Measures to enhance wound space oxygenation
Preoperative considerations for surgical team members
- Category IB
- Keep fingernails short; do not wear artificial nails.
- Scrub hands and forearms as high as the elbows for at least 2-5 minutes with appropriate antiseptic.
- After scrub, keep hands up with elbows flexed and away from the body; use a sterile towel to dry the hands and put on a sterile gown and gloves.
- Masks should be worn in the operating suite if sterile instruments are exposed and throughout the surgical procedure. Masks should cover the mouth and nose.
- The hair on the head and face is to be covered with a hood or cap.
- Liquid-resistant sterile surgical gowns and sterile gloves are to be worn by scrubbed surgical team members.
- Visibly soiled gowns are to be changed.
- Shoe covers are not necessary.
- Routine exclusion of personnel colonized by organisms, such as S aureus or group A streptococci, is not necessary unless they are specifically linked to dissemination of such organisms.
- Personnel with skin lesions that are draining are to be excluded from duty until treated and the infection has resolved.
- Educate and encourage surgical personnel regarding reporting illness of transmissible nature to supervisory and occupational health personnel.
- Policies should be established concerning patient care responsibilities for personnel with potentially transmissible infective illnesses. This should include aspects of work restrictions, personnel responsibility in utilizing health services, and declaring illness. Policies also should direct the responsible person to remove personnel from duty, and policy should be established for clearance to resume work.
- Category II
- Clean the under fingernails prior to the first scrub of the day.
- Do not wear arm/hand jewelry.
- No recommendation
- Nail polish
- Restriction of scrub suits to the operating theater
- Covering the scrub suits when outside the theater
- How or where to launder theater suites
Preoperative and postoperative wound care
- Category IB
- Handle tissues gently with good hemostasis, minimize foreign bodies, and minimize devitalized tissue and dead space.
- For Class III and IV wounds, use delayed closure or leave the wound incision open to heal by secondary intention.
- If draining of a wound is necessary, the drain exit should be via separate incision distant from the wound. Remove the drain as soon as possible.
- Primary closed incisions should be protected with a sterile dressing for 24-48 hours.
- Hands are to be washed before and after wound dressing changes/or contact.
- Category II
- Use sterile technique for wound dressing change.
- Educate the patient and relatives regarding wound care symptoms of SSIs and the need to report such problems.
Theater environment and care of instrumentation
- Category IB
- Maintain positive pressure ventilation of the operating suite relative to corridors and surrounding areas.
- Maintain a minimum of 15 air changes per hour, with a minimum of 3 being fresh air.
- Appropriate filters (as recommended by the American Institute of Architects) should be used for filtration of all air whether recirculated or fresh.
- Air should enter through the ceiling and exit near the floor.
- Keep operating room doors closed except for necessary entry.
- The use of ultraviolet lamps in the theater is not necessary as a deterrent of SSI.
- Prior to subsequent procedures, visibly soiled surfaces should be cleaned with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)–approved disinfectants.
- Following a contaminated or dirty procedure, special cleaning or closure of the operating suite is not necessary.
- Use of tacky mats prior to entry in the operating suite is not necessary.
- Sterile surgical instruments and solutes should be assembled just prior to use.
- All surgical instruments should be sterilized according to guidelines. Flush sterilization should only be used for instruments that are required for immediate patient use.
- Category II
- Limit the number of personnel entering the operating suite.
- Orthopedic implant surgery should be performed in an ultra clean air environment.
- Wet vacuum the floor of the operating theater at the end of day/night using an EPA-approved disinfectant.
Special situations
- Elective colon surgery: Bowel surgery results in the breakdown of the protective intestinal mucous membrane, with release of the facultative and anaerobic bacteria that heavily colonize the distal small bowel and colon. Eradication of aerobes and anaerobes is necessary to reduce infective complications following intestinal procedures. Mechanical cleansing and antibiotics could achieve this. Mechanical cleansing for colonic surgery can take the form of dietary restrictions; whole gut lavage with one of several preparations, such as 10% mannitol solution, Fleet's phospho-soda, or polyethylene glycol, usually is performed on the day of surgical intervention. Enteral antibiotic regimes to eradicate intrinsic bowel flora vary, with oral neomycin and erythromycin being the most popular combination used in the United States. Other combinations with neomycin include the use of metronidazole and tetracycline. Prophylactic parenteral antibiotics also are used with the above as recommended in Table 3.
- Intravascular device-related infections: Intravascular devices are of vital use in daily hospital practice. Their use is for the parenteral administration of fluids, blood products, nutritional fluids, and medication and for access in hemodialysis; equally important is their use in the monitoring of critically ill patients. Unfortunately, because their use constitutes an invasive procedure, they are associated with infectious complications that could be of a local or systemic nature. Recommendations for prevention[26] and treatment[27] are available to limit their associated morbidity and mortality (which could be as high as 20% in patients with catheter-related bloodstream infections).
- In a double-blind, randomized, controlled study of 400 patients with nontunnelled central venous catheters, Dettenkofer et al investigated the effectiveness of the antiseptic octenidine dihydrochloride, used in combination with alcohol-based antiseptic, against infection at central venous catheter insertion sites.[28] One group of patients received skin disinfection with 0.1% octenidine with 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol, while a control group was disinfected with 74% ethanol with 10% 2-propanol. Microbial skin colonization at the catheter insertion site and positive microbial cultures at the catheter tip were significantly reduced in the octenidine group. No significant differences in catheter-associated bloodstream infections were found between the groups.
Surgical Care
Although the goal of every surgeon is to prevent wound infections, they will arise. Treatment is individualized to the patient, the wound, and the nature of the infection. The operating surgeon should be made aware of the possibility of infection in the wound and determine the treatment for the wound.
Ideally, surgical care should start with meticulous detail to strategies that prevent the development of SSIs in the first place. Preoperatively, attention should be paid to factors like optimization of patient status, proper asepsis, and surgical site preparation. Intraoperatively, adherence to good basic surgical principles of minimal and fine tissue dissection, proper selection of suture materials, and proper wound closure is important.
If a SSI sets in, the treatment often involves opening the wound, evacuating pus, and cleansing the wound. The deeper tissues are inspected for integrity and for a deep space infection or source. Dressing changes allow the tissues to granulate, and the wound heals by secondary intention over several weeks. Early/delayed closure of infected wounds is often associated with relapse of infection and wound dehiscence.
- Newer concepts in the prevention of SSIs
- Evidence shows that the close regulation of blood sugar may be a major determinant of wound morbidity. Although investigators have vigorously pursued for decades the identification of a specific innate or acquired immune deficiency among patients with diabetes, it may be the blood sugar that is the determinant of infection for these patients.
- A second issue of considerable interest is body temperature. There is now a prospective randomized study that demonstrates that failure to maintain intraoperative core body temperature within 1-1.5°C of normal increases the SSI rate by a factor of 2. It begs the scientific question whether increasing core temperature during operations over normal temperature might in fact protect against infection.
- The third issue is oxygenation. The fresh, hemostatic surgical incision is a hypoxic, ischemic environment. Maintaining or increasing oxygen delivery to the wound by increasing the inspired oxygen concentration administered to the patient perioperatively has also been shown to reduce the incidence of SSIs. It is presumed that increased oxygen availability is a positive host factor, perhaps via enhanced production of oxidant products that facilitate phagocytic eradication of microbes.
- Future strategies
- The establishment of dedicated infection surveillance units in hospitals that aim to accomplish the following:
- Identify epidemics by common or uncommon organisms.
- Establish the correct use of prophylaxis (ie, timing, dose, duration, choice).
- Document costs, risk factors, and readmission rates.
- Monitor postdischarge infections and secondary consequences.
- Ensure patient safety.
- Preventing the emergence of resistance: Although resistance is not a new phenomenon, the incidence has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades. The development of new drugs has slowed considerably and may be unable to keep pace with the continuing growth of pathogen resistance. Therefore, effective strategies are needed to prevent the continuing emergence of antimicrobial resistance. These strategies include avoiding unnecessary antibiotic administration and increasing the effectiveness of prescribed antibiotics, as well as implementing improvements in infection control and optimizing medical practice.
- The establishment of dedicated infection surveillance units in hospitals that aim to accomplish the following:
- Although an SSI rate of zero may not be achievable, continued progress in understanding the biology of infection at the surgical site and consistent applications of proven methods of prevention will further reduce the frequency, cost, and morbidity associated with SSIs.
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 | |


