Skip to main content

Table 3 Included studies on intraoperative sources of implant contamination

From: Implant contamination as a cause of surgical site infection in spinal surgery: are single-use implants a reasonable solution? – a systematic review

Study

Source of contamination

Study size

Main results

Conclusion

Intraoperative sources of implant contamination

Surgical instrument trays

  Waked et al. (2007) [15]

Surgical instrument trays

90 sterilization wraps

Detection rates ranged from 7 to 97%

Substantial perforations in sterilization wraps may be missed

  Mobley and Jackson 3rd. (2018) [16]

Surgical instrument trays

20 sterilization wraps

Overall 56% accuracy

Current method for assessing sterility is inadequate

Surgical equipment

  Radcliff et al. (2013) [17]

Preoperative in-room time

7991 spine surgeries including 276 SSIs

ART was significantly higher in patients with infection (68 vs. 61 min); significant increase in infection rate if ART was > 1 h

Preoperative in-room time is a risk factor for SSI

  Blom et al. (2000) [18]

Surgical drapes

24 agar plates covered with 7 types of surgical drapes

All of the reusable woven drapes allowed bacterial penetration; non-woven drapes were impermeable apart from one

Recommendation for non-woven disposable drapes over woven drapes

  Lankester et al. (2002) [19]

Surgical gowns

40 surgical gowns of 2 types

Disposable gowns showed less bacterial penetration than reusable gowns in all tested regions

Reusable gowns may be unsuitable for use in orthopaedic implant surgery

  Ward Sr et al. (2014) [20]

Surgical gloves and gowns

1. 102 surgical team members

2. 251 surgical team members

1. 31 vs. 7% baseline bacterial contamination in cloth gowns vs. paper gowns

2. 23% of surgeons retaining outer gloves had positive glove contamination vs. 13% of those exchanging gloves

Recommendation for disposable paper gowns and outer glove exchange just before handling implant materials

  Klaber et al. (2019) [21]

Surgical gowns

140 surgical gowns

Bacterial contamination in 12% of surgical gowns (4% in total hip arthroplasty vs. 22% in spine and knee surgery)

Higher surgical gown contamination during non-arthroplasty procedures

  Wichmann et al. (2019) [22]

Surgical gloves

43 pairs of knitted cotton outer gloves

9% of gloves yielded > 100 CFU under aerobic conditions, 14% under anaerobic conditions

Low microbial contamination of knitted cotton outer gloves, but relevant proportion showing contamination above minimal thresholds

  Amirfeyz et al. (2007) [23]

Theatre shoes

50 outside shoes, 50 theatre shoes morning and 50 end of day

Microbial growth in 90% of outside shoes, 68% of theatre shows in the morning, and 56% of theatre shoes end-of-day

Recommendation for dedicated theatre shoe use and good floor washing protocol

Implant exposure to air

  Bible et al. (2013) [24]

Coverage of implants

105 surgical trays (54 uncovered vs. 51 covered trays)

Overall 10% contamination with 2% of covered vs. 17% of uncovered implants

Coverage of implants significantly reduces their contamination

  Dalstrom et al. (2008) [25]

Coverage of implants

45 surgical trays (15 uncovered and no traffic, 15 uncovered and traffic, 15 covered)

Microbial growth in 4% at 30 min to 30% at 4 h of uncovered trays vs. 0% in covered trays

Coverage of implants significantly reduces their contamination; microbial growth correlated with the duration of open exposure

  Menekse et al. (2015) [26]

Coverage of implants

42 surgical trays (20 uncovered vs. 22 covered)

Microbial growth in 55% vs. 18% in uncovered and covered trays, respectively, after 120 min

Coverage of implants significantly reduces their contamination; microbial growth correlated with the duration of open exposure

  Uzun et al. (2019) [27]

Coverage of implants

60 surgical trays (30 uncovered vs. 30 covered)

Statistically significant difference in contamination at all time points

Coverage of implants significantly reduces their contamination; microbial growth correlated with the duration of open exposure

  Agarwal et al. (2019b) [28]

Usage of an impermeable guard

10 sterile packaged pedicle screws (5 with and 5 without an intraoperative guard)

All samples without guard showed bacterial growth; none with guard

Using an intraoperative guard provides higher asepsis

  Smith et al. (2009) [29]

Individual packaging

50 screw packets

Microbial growth on 48% of packet exteriors and in 14% of acts of opening

Individual packaging of screws is a potential risk factor for contamination

Surgical environment

  Andersson et al. (2012) [30]

Door openings, number of persons in the OR

30 orthopaedic surgeries in 3 ORs

Positive correlation between CFU and door openings and CFU and number of persons in the OR

Negative impact of traffic flow and number of persons present in the OR

  Perez et al. (2018) [31]

Door openings, number of persons in the OR

48 orthopaedic and general surgeries

Positive correlation between CFU and door openings and number of persons in the OR

Negative impact of traffic flow and number of persons present in the OR

  Knobben et al. (2006) [32]

Door openings, number of persons in the OR, airflow systems

207 orthopaedic surgeries

Under original conditions 33% of contamination and 11% of SSI, after disciplinary measures and LAF installation 9 and 1% of SSI

Systemic and behavioral changes significantly decrease bacterial contamination and SSI

  Andersson et al. (2014) [33]

Airflow systems

63 orthopaedic implant surgeries (30 DV, 33 LAF)

Bacterial growth > 10 CFU/m3 in 1% of LAF ORs and 57% of DV ORs

LAF ORs offer high-quality air during surgery

  Sadrizadeh et al. (2014) [34]

Airflow systems

Physical model

Reduction of airborne and sedimenting bacteria-carrying particles by MLAF

MLAF may be an option to reduce the level of microbial contamination

  Sossai et al. (2011) [35]

Airflow systems

34 total knee arthroplasties (17 with MLAF, 17 without)

Reduction of bacterial count from 24 CFU/m3 without MLAF to 4 CFU/m3 with MLAF

MLAF may be an option to reduce the level of microbial contamination

  Noguchi et al. (2017) [36]

Airborne particles

3 patterns of physical movements

Large number of particles when unfolding surgical gown, removing gloves, and putting arms through gown sleeves; LAF reduced particles

Unnecessary actions should be avoided and LAF potentially reduces bacterial contamination

  Richard and Bowen (2017) [37]

OR surfaces

13 surfaces in 6 orthopaedic ORs

Bioburden detectable on all included surfaces

Detection of environmental trouble spots in the OR possible with ATP bioluminescence

Supportive equipment

  Ahmad et al. (2011) [38]

Supports

40 supports used in 20 hip arthroplasty procedures

85% of anterior and 50% of posterior supports showed bacterial colonisation

High bacterial load on supports may contribute to higher infection rates

  Ranawat et al. (2004) [39]

Pressure sore prevention pads

13 pressure sore prevention pads

85% of pads showed bacterial growth

Use of pressure sore prevention pads should be closely reviewed

  Ahmed et al. (2009) [40]

Tourniquets

20 tourniquets

All tourniquets were contaminate with 9 to > 385 CFU

Tourniquets should be cleaned before every surgery

  1. ART anesthesia ready time, CFU colony forming units, DV displacement ventilation system, LAF laminar airflow ventilation system, MLAF mobile laminar airflow ventilation system, OR operating room, SSI surgical site infection