Next Article in Journal
Ethnic Differences in Magnesium Intake in U.S. Older Adults: Findings from NHANES 2005–2016
Previous Article in Journal
Supplementation of Juçara Berry (Euterpe edulis Mart.) Modulates Epigenetic Markers in Monocytes from Obese Adults: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Resection, Including the Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index

1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-8520, Japan
2
Department of Medical Joint Materials, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-8520, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2018, 10(12), 1900; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121900
Submission received: 3 November 2018 / Revised: 29 November 2018 / Accepted: 29 November 2018 / Published: 3 December 2018

Abstract

:
Malignant soft-tissue sarcoma resection is associated with a relatively high incidence of surgical site infection (SSI). The known risk factors for SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma resection include tumor size and location, prolonged surgery, and massive blood loss. The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) was used as a tool to help predict the occurrence of SSI after major surgery. We investigated the utility of the GNRI as a predictor of SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma resection. We retrospectively reviewed 152 patients who underwent surgical resection of soft-tissue sarcoma in our institute, and found that the incidence of SSI was 18.4% (28/152). The SSI and non-SSI groups significantly differed regarding surgical time, diameter of the skin incision, maximum tumor diameter, instrumentation, presence of an open wound, preoperative chemotherapy, preoperative C-reactive protein concentration, and GNRI. Binomial logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma surgery were male sex, larger skin incision diameter, larger maximum tumor diameter, presence of an open wound, and lower GNRI. Our findings indicate that malnutrition is a risk factor for SSI after soft-tissue sarcoma resection, and suggest that appropriate assessment and intervention for malnutrition may reduce the incidence of SSI.

1. Introduction

Soft-tissue sarcomas are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumors that account for 1% of all adult malignancies, affect almost every site in the body, and retain the full range of malignant behavior [1]. The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) following tumor resection is high, and is especially high in cases of high-grade sarcoma, such as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and liposarcoma [2]. Because of its rarity, the risk factors for SSI after soft-tissue sarcoma resection are yet to be well clarified.
Patients with cancer reportedly have high rates of malnutrition (40–80%) [3]. The strong correlation between cancer and inflammation is well known [4]. Systemic inflammation in patients with cancer causes an elevation in C-reactive protein (CRP), and decreases in serum albumin and total protein, which reflects malnutrition [5]. Thus, preoperative nutritional intervention is important for patients with cancer [6]. However, malnutrition is often unrecognized because of ineffective screening techniques [7]. Malnutrition in patients with cancer is related to poorer clinical outcome, poor quality of life, and poor prognosis [8]. Malnutrition is also associated with a higher incidence of SSI, higher incidence of morbidity, and longer duration of hospitalization following major surgery [9].
The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) was generated to evaluate the risk of malnutrition-related complications in adult patients [10], and is a significant predictor of prognosis in many types of cancer [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The present study aimed to evaluate the potential risk factors for SSI, including preoperative GNRI, following soft-tissue sarcoma resection [19].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Data

We retrospectively examined the records of 152 patients who were treated for soft-tissue sarcoma at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kagoshima University from January 2007 to December 2016. Patients’ clinical characteristics were collected from the medical records, including sex, age, date of surgery, routine preoperative blood-test results, tumor size, tumor location, treatment, and comorbidities. An open wound was defined as a skin defect that remained after tumor resection and required secondary closure via skin grafting. Hypertension was defined in accordance with the World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension guidelines as a blood pressure greater than 140/90 (grade 1) [20]. The results of preoperative blood tests including white-blood-cell count, hemoglobin concentration, CRP concentration, total protein, and total cholesterol were extracted to evaluate the preoperative nutritional status. The occurrence of SSI was assessed in accordance with the definition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [21]. Patients for whom some of these data were missing were excluded from the study.

2.2. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index

The GNRI was calculated from the serum albumin concentration and bodyweight using the following formula: GNRI = (1.489 × albumin (g/L)) + (41.7 × (bodyweight/ideal body weight)). The bodyweight/ideal bodyweight value was set to 1 when the patient’s bodyweight exceeded the ideal bodyweight [10]. The ideal bodyweight was defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 22 kg/m2 [12,22].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Patients were divided into those who developed SSI (SSI group) and those who did not (non-SSI group). Differences in variables between the SSI and non-SSI groups were evaluated using the Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher’s exact test. Correlation coefficients were analyzed via Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. When the correlation coefficients between variables were >0.6, only one variable with the incidence of SSI, i.e., skin incision, was selected. Multivariable stepwise binomial logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationships between the incidence of SSI and the assessed variables. Because of the small number of patients and the relatively large number of variables, we applied a stepwise selection method to identify significant variables, as previously described [23]. A p-value <0.05 was regarded as significant. Analysis was performed using the BellCurve for Excel add-in software (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).

2.4. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The present study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Kagoshima University (approval number 180033), and was in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All patients provided written informed consent for the publication of their medical data.

3. Results

The clinical and demographic characteristics of the 152 patients who underwent surgical resection of soft-tissue sarcoma are shown in Table 1. The histological types of sarcoma are shown in Table 2. The sarcomas were histologically graded in accordance with the Fédération Nationale des Centers de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) grading system (Table 3) [24]. The locations of the sarcomas are shown in Table 4.
The incidence of SSI was 18.4% (28/152). The following variables significantly differed between the SSI and non-SSI groups: surgical time, diameter of the skin incision, maximum tumor diameter, instrumentation, presence of an open wound, preoperative chemotherapy, preoperative CRP concentration, and preoperative GNRI (Table 5).
Binomial logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma resection were male sex, larger diameter of the skin incision, larger tumor diameter, presence of an open wound, and lower GNRI (Table 6).

4. Discussion

In the present study, the incidence of SSI after soft-tissue sarcoma resection was 18.4%, and the preoperative GNRI differed significantly between the SSI and non-SSI groups, as the SSI group had a low nutritional status compared with the non-SSI group. In addition, we found that the two groups significantly differed regarding surgical time, diameter of the skin incision, maximum tumor diameter, instrumentation, presence of an open wound, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative CRP concentration; these variables may be risk factors for SSI following soft-tissue tumor resection. Our logistic regression analysis showed that the combination of sex, diameter of the skin incision, maximum tumor diameter, presence of an open wound, white-blood-cell count, preoperative GNRI, and ischemic heart disease had the highest coefficient of determination. These findings indicate that using the preoperative GNRI in combination with other variables can improve the prediction of SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma surgery.
Of the variables identified in the present study as significant predictors of SSI after soft-tissue sarcoma resection, the presence of an open wound and the GNRI are modifiable. Thus, clinicians should consider closing the tumor resection wound and improving the perioperative nutritional status to prevent SSI. The tumor resection wound may be closed via reconstructive surgery involving plastic surgery techniques, while the nutritional status may be improved via nutritional intervention. The incidence of malnutrition is reportedly high in not only patients with cancer, but also in patients with sarcomas, and some nutritional scores reflect the prognosis of these patients [7,8,25,26]. Malnutrition in patients with cancer results from catabolic alterations including inadequate nutritional intake, muscle protein depletion, and systemic inflammation caused [6]. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines for surgery in patients with cancer (2017) state that the success of the surgery depends on not only technique, but also on perioperative nutritional interventions [27]. In particular, the ESPEN guidelines emphasize the importance of perioperative nutritional interventions in preventing SSI in patients with cancer [27]. Nutritional therapeutic interventions for cancer-associated malnutrition include counseling, oral nutritional supplements, artificial nutrition, drug therapy, and physical therapy. All patients with cancer should undergo preoperative screening for malnutrition, and substrate and energy requirements should be met by stepwise nutritional interventions, from counseling to parenteral nutrition [6]. More than 70 nutritional assessment tools were reported in different populations [28]. Although nutritional screening is recommended, a fully sensitive and specific nutritional assessment tool is yet to be established [29]. As the high incidence of malnutrition in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma is correlated with poor prognosis [30], nutritional intervention may promote not only a reduction in the risk of SSI, but also an improvement in the prognosis.

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the preoperative GNRI is a simple and useful tool for predicting the risk of SSI following soft-tissue sarcoma resection. The use of complementary nutritional therapies to improve the GNRI may reduce the incidence of SSI.
Our study has several limitations. Firstly, this was a single-center cohort study; thus, selection bias might have occurred. Our findings should be confirmed in a multicenter study. Secondly, we examined relatively few patients and variables; a bigger cohort is needed to precisely evaluate the risk factors for SSI after soft-tissue sarcoma resection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.T. and T.S.; data curation, H.S. and S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S. and T.S.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kana Maeda for her invaluable assistance. We thank Kelly Zammit from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Clark, M.A.; Fisher, C.; Judson, I.; Thomas, J.M. Soft-tissue sarcomas in adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nagano, S.; Yokouchi, M.; Setoguchi, T.; Sasaki, H.; Shimada, H.; Kawamura, I.; Ishidou, Y.; Kamizono, J.; Yamamoto, T.; Kawamura, H.; et al. Analysis of surgical site infection after musculoskeletal tumor surgery: Risk assessment using a new scoring system. Sarcoma 2014, 2014, 645496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Isenring, E.; Bauer, J.; Capra, S. The scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its association with quality of life in ambulatory patients receiving radiotherapy. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 57, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Coussens, L.M.; Werb, Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature 2002, 420, 860–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. McMillan, D.C. The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score: A decade of experience in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2013, 39, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arends, J.; Bachmann, P.; Baracos, V.; Barthelemy, N.; Bertz, H.; Bozzetti, F.; Fearon, K.; Hutterer, E.; Isenring, E.; Kaasa, S.; et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 36, 11–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Aktas, A.; Walsh, D.; Galang, M.; O’Donoghue, N.; Rybicki, L.; Hullihen, B.; Schleckman, E. Underrecognition of Malnutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Role of the Dietitian and Clinical Practice Variations. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2017, 34, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sealy, M.J.; Nijholt, W.; Stuiver, M.M.; van der Berg, M.M.; Roodenburg, J.L.; van der Schans, C.P.; Ottery, F.D.; Jager-Wittenaar, H. Content validity across methods of malnutrition assessment in patients with cancer is limited. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016, 76, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yoshida, N.; Baba, Y.; Shigaki, H.; Harada, K.; Iwatsuki, M.; Kurashige, J.; Sakamoto, Y.; Miyamoto, Y.; Ishimoto, T.; Kosumi, K.; et al. Preoperative Nutritional Assessment by Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) is Useful to estimate Postoperative Morbidity After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer. World J. Surg. 2016, 40, 1910–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bouillanne, O.; Morineau, G.; Dupont, C.; Coulombel, I.; Vincent, J.P.; Nicolis, I.; Benazeth, S.; Cynober, L.; Aussel, C. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index: A new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 82, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bo, Y.; Wang, K.; Liu, Y.; You, J.; Cui, H.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, Q.; Yuan, L. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Predicts Survival in Elderly Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients with Radiotherapy. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yamada, K.; Furuya, R.; Takita, T.; Maruyama, Y.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Ohkawa, S.; Kumagai, H. Simplified nutritional screening tools for patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Wada, H.; Dohi, T.; Miyauchi, K.; Doi, S.; Naito, R.; Konishi, H.; Tsuboi, S.; Ogita, M.; Kasai, T.; Hassan, A.; et al. Prognostic Impact of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 2017, 119, 1740–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mitani, Y.; Oki, Y.; Fujimoto, Y.; Yamaguchi, T.; Iwata, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Takahashi, K.; Yamada, K.; Ishikawa, A. Relationship between functional independence measure and geriatric nutritional risk index in pneumonia patients in long-term nursing care facilities. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 1617–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sargento, L.; Vicente Simoes, A.; Rodrigues, J.; Longo, S.; Lousada, N.; Palma Dos Reis, R. Geriatric nutritional risk index as a nutritional and survival risk assessment tool in stable outpatients with systolic heart failure. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2017, 27, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xie, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ye, T.; Ge, S.; Zhuo, R.; Zhu, H. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Independently Predicts Mortality in Diabetic Foot Ulcers Patients Undergoing Amputations. J. Diabetes Res. 2017, 2017, 5797194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kawamiya, T.; Suzuki, S.; Ishii, H.; Hirayama, K.; Harada, K.; Shibata, Y.; Tatami, Y.; Harata, S.; Kawashima, K.; Kunimura, A.; et al. Correlations between geriatric nutritional risk index and peripheral artery disease in elderly coronary artery disease patients. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 1057–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Honda, Y.; Nagai, T.; Iwakami, N.; Sugano, Y.; Honda, S.; Okada, A.; Asaumi, Y.; Aiba, T.; Noguchi, T.; Kusano, K.; et al. Usefulness of Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index for Assessing Nutritional Status and Its Prognostic Impact in Patients Aged >/=65 Years With Acute Heart Failure. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 118, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moore, J.; Isler, M.; Barry, J.; Mottard, S. Major wound complication risk factors following soft tissue sarcoma resection. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 40, 1671–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Whitworth, J.A.; World Health Organization; ISoHWG. 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J. Hypertens. 2003, 21, 1983–1992. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  21. Mangram, A.J.; Horan, T.C.; Pearson, M.L.; Silver, L.C.; Jarvis, W.R. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am. J. Infect. Control. 1999, 27, 97–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shah, B.; Sucher, K.; Hollenbeck, C.B. Comparison of ideal body weight equations and published height-weight tables with body mass index tables for healthy adults in the United States. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2006, 21, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fischer, K.E.; Rogowski, W.H.; Leidl, R.; Stollenwerk, B. Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis. Health Policy 2013, 112, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Guillou, L.; Coindre, J.M.; Bonichon, F.; Nguyen, B.B.; Terrier, P.; Collin, F.; Vilain, M.O.; Mandard, A.M.; Le Doussal, V.; Leroux, A.; et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1997, 15, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tenardi, R.D.; Fruhwald, M.C.; Jurgens, H.; Hertroijs, D.; Bauer, J. Nutritional status of children and young adults with Ewing sarcoma or osteosarcoma at diagnosis and during multimodality therapy. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2012, 59, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Roop, C.; Piscitelli, M.; Lynch, M.P. Assessing the nutritional status of patients with sarcoma by using the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2010, 14, 375–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Weimann, A.; Braga, M.; Carli, F.; Higashiguchi, T.; Hubner, M.; Klek, S.; Laviano, A.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N.; Martindale, R.; et al. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 36, 623–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, M.A.E.; Guaitoli, P.R.; Jansma, E.P.; de Vet, H.C.W. A systematic review of malnutrition screening tools for the nursing home setting. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2014, 15, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Virizuela, J.A.; Camblor-Alvarez, M.; Luengo-Perez, L.M.; Grande, E.; Alvarez-Hernandez, J.; Sendros-Madrono, M.J.; Jimenez-Fonseca, P.; Cervera-Peris, M.; Ocon-Breton, M.J. Nutritional support and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients: An expert consensus report. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2018, 20, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sasaki, H.; Nagano, S.; Komiya, S.; Taniguchi, N.; Setoguchi, T. Validation of Different Nutritional Assessment Tools in Predicting Prognosis of Patients with Soft Tissue Spindle-Cell Sarcomas. Nutrients 2018, 10, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic data of patients with soft tissue sarcoma.
Table 1. Demographic data of patients with soft tissue sarcoma.
Variables
Females76/152 (50%)
Age at surgery (years)64 (51–73)
Surgical time (min)213 (146–307)
Diameter of the skin incision (cm)20 (15–30)
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)70 (47–110)
Deep tumor location98/152 (64.5%)
Instrumentation12/152 (7.9%)
Presence of an open wound after tumor resection42/152 (27.6%)
Preoperative chemotherapy18/152 (11.8%)
White-blood-cell count (/μL)5625 (4445–6638)
Hemoglobin concentration (g/dL)13.3 (11.8–14.5)
C-reactive protein concentration (mg/dL)0.14 (0.04–0.99)
Total protein (g/dL)7.2 (6.9–7.5)
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)195.2 ± 38.2
Geriatric nutritional risk index104.2 (97.0–108.7)
Hypertension50/152 (32.9%)
Ischemic heart disease9/152 (5.9%)
Diabetes mellitus19/152 (12.5%)
Table 2. Types of sarcomas.
Table 2. Types of sarcomas.
Pathological TypeNumber
Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma50
Liposarcoma33
Atypical lipomatous tumor19
Synovial sarcoma8
Myxofibrosarcoma15
Leiomyosarcoma6
Rhabdomyosarcoma3
Others18
Total152
Table 3. Fédération Nationale des Centers de Lutte Contre le Cancer grading of the sarcomas.
Table 3. Fédération Nationale des Centers de Lutte Contre le Cancer grading of the sarcomas.
FNCLCC GradingNumber
Grade 119
Grade 238
Grade 381
Unknown grade14
Total152
Table 4. Locations of the sarcomas.
Table 4. Locations of the sarcomas.
LocationNumber
Upper extremity19
Trunk33
Lower extremity (thigh)100 (85)
Total152
Table 5. Comparison of patients with versus without surgical site infection (SSI) after resection.
Table 5. Comparison of patients with versus without surgical site infection (SSI) after resection.
VariablesSSI (+)SSI (−)p-Value
Number of patients28124
Proportion of females35.7% (10/28)53.2% (66/124)0.142
Age at surgery (years)68 (56–74)64 (51–73)0.193
Surgical time (min)284 (211–447)198 (140–284)0.001 *
Diameter of the skin incision (cm)30 (20–40)20 (15–30)0.005 *
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)98 (60–160)69 (41–100)0.010 *
Deep tumor location57.1% (16/28)63.5% (81/124)0.514
Instrumentation17.9% (5/28)5.6% (7/124)0.049 *
Proportion of patients with an open wound after tumor resection46.4% (13/28)22.7% (29/128)0.019 *
Preoperative chemotherapy25.0% (7/28)8.9% (11/124)0.026 *
White-blood-cell count (/μL)5685 (4088–7460)4458 (4458–6513)0.994
Hemoglobin concentration (g/dL)12.9 (11.9–14.5)13.3 (11.8–14.6)0.341
C-reactive protein concentration (mg/dL)0.70 (0.10–2.99)0.12 (0.04–0.73)0.014 *
Total protein (g/dL)7.0 (6.7–7.4)7.3 (6.9–7.5)0.092
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)188.5 ± 31.2196.7 ± 39.60.181
Geriatric nutritional risk index99.8 (92.3–105.5)104.3 (98.3–108.9)0.026 *
Hypertension39.3% (11/28)31.5% (39/124)0.505
Ischemic heart disease14.3% (4/28)4.0% (5/124)0.060
Diabetes mellitus14.3% (4/28)12.1% (15/124)0.754
* p < 0.05. The differences in variables between the SSI and non-SSI groups were evaluated using the Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher’s exact test.
Table 6. Binomial logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after resection.
Table 6. Binomial logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after resection.
VariablesHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Intervals)p-Value
Female sex0.458 (0.171–1.225)0.120
Diameter of the skin incision (cm)1.045 (1.005–1.087)0.028 *
Tumor diameter1.007 (1.001–1.014)0.029 *
Presence of an open wound after tumor resection4.420 (1.547–12.627)0.006 *
White-blood-cell count (/µL)1.000 (1.000–1.000)0.051
Geriatric nutritional risk index0.951 (0.908–0.996)0.034 *
Ischemic heart disease3.933 (0.774–19.99)0.099
Multivariable stepwise binomial logistic regression analysis was used. * p < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sasaki, H.; Nagano, S.; Taniguchi, N.; Setoguchi, T. Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Resection, Including the Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1900. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121900

AMA Style

Sasaki H, Nagano S, Taniguchi N, Setoguchi T. Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Resection, Including the Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index. Nutrients. 2018; 10(12):1900. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121900

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sasaki, Hiromi, Satoshi Nagano, Noboru Taniguchi, and Takao Setoguchi. 2018. "Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Resection, Including the Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index" Nutrients 10, no. 12: 1900. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121900

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop