Next Article in Journal
Curcumin: Biological Activities and Modern Pharmaceutical Forms
Next Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Torso, Maxillofacial, and Skin Traumatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Determinants of Ethionamide Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Site Infection in General Surgery: Oncological Treatments and HIPEC
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Groin Surgical Site Infection in Vascular Surgery: Systemic Review on Peri-Operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Department of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
Division of Vascular Surgery, Ospedale Pellegrini, 80100 Naples, Italy
Deparment of Medicine and Health Sciences “V. Tiberio”, University of Campobasso, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University Federico II of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, 05100 Terni, Italy
Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padova, 35100 Padova, Italy
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(2), 134;
Submission received: 9 December 2021 / Revised: 10 January 2022 / Accepted: 12 January 2022 / Published: 20 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Site Infection in General Surgery)


Objectives: Surgical site infections (SSIs) in lower extremity vascular surgeries, post-groin incision, are not only common complications and significant contributors to patient mortality and morbidity, but also major financial burdens on healthcare systems and patients. In spite of recent advances in pre- and post-operative care, SSI rates in the vascular surgery field remain significant. However, compliant antibiotic therapy can successfully reduce the SSI incidence pre- and post-surgery. Methods: In October 2021, we conducted a systematic literature review using OVID, PubMed, and EMBASE databases, centered on studies published between January 1980 and December 2020. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses checklist. Inclusion/exclusion criteria have been carefully selected and reported in the text. For analyses, we calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and weighted odds ratios to amalgamate control and study groups in publications. We applied The Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess bias risk in selected studies. Results: In total, 592 articles were identified. After the removal of duplicates and excluded studies, 36 full-texts were included for review. Conclusions: The review confirmed that antibiotic therapy, administered according to all peri-operative protocols described, is useful in reducing groin SSI rate in vascular surgery.

1. Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are major concerns for all surgical specialties, with the literature reporting SSI risks of 2–4% for “clean surgery” [1]. Higher rates have been reported for post-traumatic procedures (15–50%), or in selected populations, including high-risk vascular surgery patients (15–22%), and accompanied by a considerable lengthening of hospitalization times, a high mortality rate (26–67%), and the cost-burden to community [2,3]. Similarly, SSI-mediated morbidity may be higher when prosthetic grafts are used in complex surgeries; thus, SSI prevention and treatment are both clinically significant. The current recommendations for clean vascular surgical procedures advocate no more than 24 h of intravenous antibiotic post-operative therapy, as no benefits are indicated past this treatment period [4,5,6]. However, when overt infection signs or risks are present, in particular, when synthetic prostheses are concerned, the literature is less clear on this topic. Therefore, as these indications require clarification, interest continues to be strong in the use of new antibiotics and also in alternative methods of their delivery.
In vascular surgery, lower extremity bypass surgery for limb salvage has the highest rate of SSI incidence, with rates varying between 5% and 30% [1,2,3,4,5,6]. SSIs increase hospital stays, increase readmission rates, incur elevated mortality and morbidity rates, increase healthcare burdens, and increase the incidence of repeat revascularization surgeries [4,5]. Moreover, several health risk factors such as diabetes, smoking, being female, prosthetic grafts, obesity, and steroid use contribute to lower extremity SSIs [7,8,9,10,11].
While some risk factors are not modifiable, identifying modifiable factors can successfully reduce SSIs. In particular, the rapid identification of causative bacteria is vital to establish and select the most appropriate antibiotic therapy. While any bacteria can theoretically infect a vascular prosthesis or contribute to an SSI, the Gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Gram-positive Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus strains are the most commonly found in SSIs of the groin, while fungal infections are found less frequently, although present in the inguinal area [8,12,13,14,15]. A considerable challenge to SSI diagnostics and treatment are biofilms (or microfouling) [16,17]: these complex bacterial polymeric aggregations, consisting of bacterial glycocalyx with incorporated microcolonies, are characterized by the secretion of protective matrix adhesives that provide safe environments from external antimicrobial agents and host defenses [16]. Biofilms become manifest as polymicrobial infections and contain dominant, highly resistant, difficult-to-eradicate bacteria, which increase patient mortality and morbidity [18].
As in all surgical specialties, vascular SSI bacterial typology has changed over time, and is reflected by an elevated incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, especially Staphylococcal family members. In particular, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infections are a serious risk factor for nosocomial-morbidity and morbidity in terms of admission to intensive care, repeated surgical procedures, and major amputation infection risks [19,20,21,22]. Rarely, isolated strains of Staphylococcus aureus are still sensitive to penicillin. More frequently, these Staphylococci are distinguished as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and MSSA (methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus). Resistance to penicillin (MSSA) is conferred by a bacterial penicillinase. This resistance can be overcome by adding a beta-lactamase inhibitor (e.g., amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam) or by using a penicillinase-resistant penicillin (e.g., oxacillin). Methicillin resistance (MRSA) is conferred by the presence of the bacterial gene mecA, which codes for a penicillin-binding protein, an enzyme that has a low affinity for beta-lactams, and therefore leads to resistance to methicillin and oxacillin. There are MRSA of hospital origin often characterized by extended resistance to antibiotics (MDR, multidrug resistance) and MRSA that is community-acquired, CA-MRSA; the latter of which can maintain sensitivity to tetracyclines (tetracycline, doxycycline, minocycline, tigecycline) [23].
In recent years, the WHO Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption (2016–2018) described how the percentage of MRSA, in the evaluation of hospital infections, has remained stable (around 34%). Relative to Gram-positive bacteria, the highest resistance rates were observed for S. aureus to erythromycin (38.9%), clindamycin (34.4%), methicillin (33.5%), and levofloxacin (31.5%). For many years, the treatment of choice to combat MRSA has been based on the use of glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin); however, the excessive and careless use of these antibiotics has led to the emergence of strains with decreased sensitivity to vancomycin. In recent years, new antibiotics have been introduced into clinical practice, such as linezolid, daptomycin, and more recently, ceftaroline, also in combination with vancomycin and daptomycin, for the treatment of severe MRSA infections. For the latter antibiotics too, particularly linezolid and daptomycin, the emergence of resistant strains has been observed [24]. Thus, active SSI prevention is highly advisable for peri-operative antibiotic therapy, in addition to the usual stringent antiseptic and sterility policies. Such combinations should minimize vascular SSI onset, especially in inguinal areas.

2. Materials and Methods

Two independent authors (CR and CF) performed a systematic literature search using OVID, PubMed, and EMBASE databases in October 2021. The search centered on studies written in English and published between January 1980 and December 2020. Our strategy adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines.
Search terms: “surgical site infection” AND “vascular surgery” AND “antibiotic therapy”. Bibliographies of selected studies were examined to identify other potentially relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were documents, books, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, reviews, observational studies, and meta-analyses.
Two co-authors (AR and BA) independently conducted screening, review, and quality assessments. When eligibility disagreements arose, another author (MG) reviewed the study, and agreement was reached. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and weighted odds ratios to amalgamate and analyze control and study groups in studies. We combined treatment effects using the Chi-square test, and Mantel–Haenszel risk ratios were used to assess heterogeneity. To assess the risk of bias for selected studies, the Cochrane Collaboration tool was used.

3. Results

We identified 592 publications. After the removal of 228 duplicates, 364 publications were examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1). The screening strategy is also shown in Figure 1.

4. Study Descriptions

We selected 36 full-text articles for inclusion: 2 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews, 11 clinical trials, 7 reviews, and 14 observational studies (mostly retrospective) were analyzed (Figure 1). Articles were deemed highly relevant if they specifically dealt with commonly used preventative and treatment antibiotic therapies for SSIs after groin incision in vascular surgery.

5. Risk of Bias

In 13 studies, authors satisfactorily outlined randomization and allocation masking methods. Therefore, these studies were deemed at low risk of selection bias (Table 1).
We deemed 32 studies at high risk of bias as outcome assessments were not blinded. We considered 25 studies at low risk of selective reporting, but for the other 21 studies, this was unclear.

6. Pre-Operative Antibiotic Therapy

Although SSIs are relatively rare in vascular surgery, they have serious effects. Thus, pre-operative infection prophylaxes are advised to minimize infection risks, especially for patients with synthetic grafts. To address this, we analyzed the evidence on pre-operative antibiotics prior to vascular surgery. Firstly, for most vascular interventions, Gram-positive bacteria, in particular S. aureus, represent approximately 80% of all SSIs [2,3]. In contrast, Gram-negative bacteria are implicated in 20% to 25% of infections [1,2,3,4]; however, for effective antibiotic prophylaxis, both bacterial types should be targeted and controlled.
Synthetic vascular prosthesis implantation generates particular microenvironments and conditions that can promote bacterial wound invasion and biofilm formation; this latter functionality defends enclosed bacteria from antibiotic therapy and host defense [38]. To reduce or eliminate the bacterial colonization of damaged tissues, an antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered for effective drug concentrations in tissue at the surgical site before surgery commences. Therefore, the administration of pre-operative antibiotic therapy is advisable 60 min before surgery, and also in additional intraoperative doses if the operation lasts more than 4 h and/or more than 1500 cc blood is lost [25,38].
In their 34 RCT meta-analysis, Stewart et al. investigated the effects of systemic antibiotics compared with placebo in patients requiring synthetic graft vascular surgery, with overall consistent SSI reductions identified using systemic antibiotics (relative risk = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.16–0.38; p < 0.001). These authors observed clear benefits of prophylactic antibiotic use for arterial surgery reconstruction, while other interventional approaches (pre-operative bathing with antiseptic agents and wound drainage) lacked effective evidence [39].
Moreover, a prospective, randomized, blinded study by Pitt et al. showed that either pre-operative systemic or intraoperative topical antibiotics were largely effective in preventing groin wound SSIs, but no therapeutic advantages were observed when treatments were combined [40].
To combat SSIs in vascular surgery, the prophylaxes of choice are primarily first or second-generation cephalosporins, as they are low-cost options (the most common prophylaxis is cefazolin). Vancomycin or clindamycin appear to be preferentially used for patients with β-lactam allergy [38].
It is useful to remember that allergies related to common antibiotics such as cephalosporins are among the most frequently reported allergies, but only 10% of these patients are truly allergic to these drugs. This situation leads to potential unintended damage for patients and creates difficulties for doctors’ treatment decisions. The detection of actual allergies with skin tests is therefore important for decision-making strategies in these patients [25].
Gram-negative bacterial coverage is also an important factor as groin and abdominal surgeries are often infected with gastrointestinal tract flora [41]. While other studies [25,26] compared single- and multiple-dose antimicrobials, no significant differences were identified.
Due to the higher prevalence of MRSA, infection trends are changing [15]. In hospitals with high MRSA prevalence rates, or patients at high infection risk (e.g., geriatric, oncological, and dialysis patients), vancomycin may be used for prophylaxis. When this antibiotic is administered with cefazolin, it is more effective in stopping SSI and targeting Gram-negative bacteria [41].
Stone et al. compared cefazolin with the association of cefazolin plus daptomycin administration to prevent pre-operative vascular SSIs and identified lower SSI rates in the combined antibiotics cohort (3.9% versus 12.9%) [28]. In a similar study, these authors compared combined cefazolin/daptomycin with cefazolin/vancomycin in patients undergoing vascular surgery. The combined vancomycin group showed decreased Gram-positive SSI rates during the post-operative course [27].
Mohammad et al. demonstrated that locally applied intraoperative vancomycin plus standard pre-operative antibiotics lowered groin wound SSIs in patients undergoing arterial operations. Although this positive result mainly reflected a reduction in superficial SSIs, the deep wound dehiscence rate did not show a significant decrease [42]. Thus, from these studies, anti-MRSA prophylaxes should be selectively administered to high-risk MRSA infection populations.
Classen et al. showed that cephalosporin supplement administration was favorable for conditions where blood loss exceeded 1500 cc. and/or surgery lasted more than 240 min [29]. In the event of a cephalosporin-related allergy, vancomycin or clindamycin should be considered as substitutes, along with adequate Gram-negative coverage. Aztreonam is considered an appropriate substitute [41].
For the prophylactic administration of vancomycin, the drug should be administered 60–120 min prior to surgery as drug tissue distribution rates and bactericidal activities are slower than cephalosporins [1]. Pounds et al., in their retrospective study on hospitalization stays before surgical procedures, showed that SSI rates were higher for prolonged pre-operative hospitalizations. Therefore, avoidable hospitalization before surgery should be ensured [15].
For endovascular revascularization procedures, there is no general consensus on prophylaxis with antibiotics. Infection rates after endovascular aortic repair or thoracic endovascular aortic repair procedures occur in less than 1% of patients [30,43], whereas infection rates are higher in emergency settings [28]. However, endovascular graft infections are related to high mortality and morbidity [44]. Antibiotic prophylaxis corresponding to that performed for open vascular procedures, through a single pre-operative dose of cefazolin and vancomycin (as an alternative for patients with β-lactamase allergy) is therefore recommended and widely practiced [44] Deikema et al. [45] reported that routine MRSA nasal carriage screening putatively reduced MRSA infection risks in patients having major surgery; however, the data were not strong. In a large-scale, retrospective interventional cohort study, Harbarth et al. [31] showed that for patients undergoing routine MRSA carriage screening before surgery (patients received one 5-day trial of mupirocin nasal ointment and a pre-operative prophylactic antibiotic for MRSA), no differences in MRSA SSI rates were observed when compared with controls. In contrast, Malde et al. [46] supported routine MRSA screening in those undergoing vascular surgery: this retrospective study demonstrated significant reductions in MRSA infections and amputation rates after routine MRSA screening was implemented.
This evidence suggests that adequate pre-operative antibiotic administration, with reference to bactericidal and pharmacokinetic activities and associated Gram-positive and -negative bacteria coverage, may limit groin SSI rates during vascular procedures. Antibiotics should be adapted to the patient’s past infection history and a concerted effort made to avoid a prolonged non-essential pre-operative hospitalization. Based on the evidence from this review, however, routine nasal MRSA screening does not appear to be essential.
Synthetic data are shown in Table 2.

7. Intraoperative Use of Local Antibiotics

Optimized aseptic surgery techniques and correct antibiotic prophylaxis are ideal preventative measures against SSIs. Prolonged antibiotic administration may increase resistance risks, allergy, and/or toxicity rates. In addition, tissue trauma during surgery and healing processes may partially reduce tissue perfusion and cause decreased tissue penetration of systemically administered antibiotics [47,48]. Collagen implants containing gentamicin can be used to reduce groin wound SSIs and the requirement for repeated surgery by providing high, local concentrations of antibiotics (gentamicin), but at low levels in serum [32,33,34]. Gentamicin-containing collagen implants limit wound complications and repeated surgeries and are completely absorbable, unlike polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spheres, which need to be removed [48]. Furthermore, when gentamicin is used intraoperatively (local), its concentration levels rapidly decrease, thereby avoiding antibiotic resistance [47,48]. Similarly, collagen is advantageous as it simultaneously functions as an adjuvant for hemostasis and for the healing processes [34].
Investigations on collagen implants containing antibiotics (gentamicin) for local intraoperative use have shown they reduce SSIs in patients having undergone general surgery, orthopedic, gynecological, and other general surgeries [35,49]. A single, prospective randomized investigation by Costa Almeida et al. evaluated gentamicin collagen implants for vascular surgery [36]. The study included 60 non-diabetic and non-obese patients treated with gentamicin collagen implants at the groin wound site at the end of vascular prosthetic surgery, compared to a control group. No (0%) SSI was identified in the study group compared with 6 (10%) SSI cases in controls. Moreover, significantly decreased hospital stays were observed between groups. Other smaller studies have produced similar results [37,50], but larger multi-center RCTs are required to validate these observations.
Synthetic data are shown in Table 3.

8. Study Limitations

Some limitations can be identified in our study by differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria between the various studies selected for the systematic review. However, heterogeneity indices for each study were negligible. Equally, a risk of selection bias of articles may have occurred. However, the authors stringently observed systematic literature search guidelines to eliminate potential bias. A further study limitation was the blinding of those who produced the evaluation of the wounds: this was, in fact, performed through a subjective assessment of the authors, as double-blind treatment would not have been possible. However, we took steps to minimize this potential bias, at least for RCT.

9. Conclusions

SSI risks are major complications associated with inguinal incisions in the vascular surgery field and are also related to significant mortality and morbidity rates. We performed an evidence-based literature review to evaluate and confirm the validity of peri-operative administration of antibiotics for the prevention of SSI in vascular surgery, frequently the source of prosthetic infections and late failure of revascularization procedures. The administration of pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis (with coverage of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria) and the possible supplement of a second similar dose in the intraoperative phase, if the interventions last more than 4 h and/or the blood loss exceeds 1500 cc, in fact, was found to have a significant impact in reducing inguinal SSI rates during vascular surgery.
Strategically designed RCTs and retrospective investigations should be conducted to corroborate these observations. However, based on this review, we aim to use these observations as standard pre-operative strategies for vascular surgeons in today’s practice.
In the future, these modifications to our policies will allow us to retrospectively evaluate the effects of these interventions on inguinal SSI rates after vascular interventions, thereby addressing knowledge gaps in the literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: B.A., R.C. (Rita Compagna) and P.B.; methodology: S.D.V., A.R. and R.C. (Roberto Cirocchi); writing—original draft preparation: F.C., M.G., F.S. and A.S.; writing—review and editing: R.C. (Rita Compagna), A.R. and P.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery—University Federico II of Naples as didactical fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because they were not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived for this study because it was not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


No other support was covered by authors contribution or other funding sections. The individual contribution of each co-author has been stated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Anderson, D.J.; Podgorny, K.; Berríos-Torres, S.I.; Bratzler, D.W.; Dellinger, E.P.; Greene, L.; Nyquist, A.C.; Saiman, L.; Yokoe, D.S.; Maragakis, L.L.; et al. Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 605–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Inui, T.; Bandyk, D.F. Vascular surgical site infection: Risk factors and preventive measures. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 2015, 28, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aicher, B.; Curry, P.; Croal-Abrahams, L.; Hao, S.; Kalsi, R.; Menon, N.; Drucker, C.; Harris, D.; Toursavadkohi, S.; Crawford, R.; et al. Infrainguinal wound infections in vascular surgery: An antiquated challenge without a modern solution. J. Vasc. Nurs. 2017, 35, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kent, K.C.; Bartek, S.; Kuntz, K.M.; Anninos, E.; Skillman, J.J. Prospective study of wound complications in continuous infrainguinal incisions after lower limb arterial reconstruction: Incidence, risk factors, and cost. Surgery 1996, 119, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, E.S.; Santilli, S.M.; Olson, M.M.; Kuskowski, M.A.; Lee, J.T. Wound Infection after Infrainguinal Bypass Operations: Multivariate Analysis of Putative Risk Factors. Surg. Infect. 2000, 1, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vogel, T.R.; Dombrovskiy, V.Y.; Carson, J.L.; Haser, P.B.; Lowry, S.F.; Graham, A.M. Infectious complications after elective vascular surgical procedures. J. Vasc. Surg. 2010, 51, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Johnson, J.A.; Cogbill, T.H.; Strutt, P.J.; Gundersen, A.L. Wound Complications after Infrainguinal Bypass: Classification, Predisposing Factors, and Management. Arch. Surg. 1988, 123, 859–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Giles, K.A.; Hamdan, A.D.; Pomposelli, F.B.; Wyers, M.C.; Siracuse, J.J.; Schermerhorn, M.L. Body Mass Index: Surgical Site Infections and Mortality after Lower Extremity Bypass from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005–2007. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2010, 24, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Siracuse, J.J.; Nandivada, P.; Giles, K.A.; Hamdan, A.D.; Wyers, M.C.; Chaikof, E.L.; Pomposelli, F.B.; Schermerhorn, M.L. Ten Year Experience with Prosthetic Graft Infections Involving the Femoral Artery. J. Vasc. Surg. 2013, 57, 700–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wiseman, J.T.; Fernandes-Taylor, S.; Barnes, M.L.; Saunders, R.S.; Saha, S.; Havlena, J.; Rathouz, P.J.; Kent, K.C. Predictors of surgical site infection after hospital discharge in patients undergoing major vascular surgery. J. Vasc. Surg. 2015, 62, 1023–1031.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Davis, F.M.; Sutzko, D.C.; Grey, S.F.; Mansour, M.A.; Jain, K.M.; Nypaver, T.J.; Gaborek, G.; Henke, P.K. Predictors of surgical site infection after open lower extremity revascularization. J. Vasc. Surg. 2017, 65, 1769–1778.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Bandyk, D.F.; Berni, G.A.; Thiele, B.L.; Towne, J.B. Aortofemoral graft infection due to Staphylococcus epidermidis. Arch. Surg. 1984, 119, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Salzmann, G. Perioperative infection prophylaxis in vascular surgery—A randomized prospective study. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1983, 31, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Harris, K.A. Graft infections. J. Vasc. Nurs. Off. Publ. Soc. Peripher. Vasc. Nurs. 1992, 10, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pounds, L.L.; Montes-Walters, M.; Mayhall, C.G.; Falk, P.S.; Sanderson, E.; Hunter, G.C.; Killewich, L.A. A Changing Pattern of Infection after Major Vascular Reconstructions. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2005, 39, T1–T7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Towne, J.B.; Seabrook, G.R.; Bandyk, D.; Freischlag, J.A.; Edmiston, C.E. In situ replacement of arterial prosthesis infected by bacterial biofilms: Long-term follow-up. J. Vasc. Surg. 1994, 19, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Frei, E.; Hodgkiss-Harlow, K.; Rossi, P.J.; Edmiston, C.E., Jr.; Bandyk, D.F. Microbial Pathogenesis of Bacterial Biofilms: A Causative Factor of Vascular Surgical Site Infection. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2011, 45, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wolcott, R.D.; Rhoads, D.D.; Dowd, S.E. Biofilms and chronic wound inflammation. J. Wound Care 2008, 17, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Panlilio, A.L.; Culver, D.H.; Gaynes, R.P.; Banerjee, S.; Henderson, T.S.; Tolson, J.S.; Martone, W.J.; National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in U.S. hospitals, 1975–1991. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1992, 13, 582–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Naylor, A.R.; Hayes, P.D.; Darke, S. A prospective audit of complex wound and graft infections in Great Britain and Ireland: The emergence of MRSA. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Vasc. Surg. 2001, 21, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Cowie, S.E.; Ma, I.; Lee, S.K.; Smith, R.M.; Hsiang, Y.N. Nosocomial MRSA infection in vascular surgery patients: Impact on patient outcome. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2005, 39, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. O’Connor, S.; Andrew, P.; Batt, M.; Becquemin, J.P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for aortic graft infection. J. Vasc. Surg. 2006, 44, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Ogawara, H. Comparison of Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms in Antibiotic-Producing and Pathogenic Bacteria. Molecules 2019, 24, 3430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. WHO. WHO Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption: 2016–2018 Early Implementation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9789241514880.
  25. Bratzler, D.W.; Houck, P.M.; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am. J. Surg. 2005, 189, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McDonald, M.; Grabsch, E.; Marshall, C.; Forbes, A. Single-versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: A systematic review. Aust. N. Z. J. Surg. 1998, 68, 388–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Patrick, S.; James, C.; Ali, A.; Lawson, S.; Mary, E.; Modak, A. Vascular Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis Study (VSAPS). Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2010, 44, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stone, P.A.; AbuRahma, A.F.; Campbell, J.R.; Hass, S.M.; Mousa, A.Y.; Nanjundappa, A.; Srivastiva, M.; Modak, A.; Emmett, M. Prospective Randomized Double blinded Trial Comparing 2 Anti-MRSA Agents with Supplemental Coverage of Cefazolin before Lower Extremity Revascularization. Ann. Surg. 2015, 262, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Classen, D.C.; Evans, R.S.; Pestotnik, S.L.; Horn, S.D.; Menlove, R.L.; Burke, J.P. The Timing of Prophylactic Administration of Antibiotics and the Risk of Surgical-Wound Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992, 326, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Argyriou, C.; Georgiadis, G.S.; Lazarides, M.K.; Georgakarakos, E.; Antoniou, G.A. Endograft Infection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Endovasc. Ther. Off. J. Int. Soc. Endovasc. Spec. 2017, 24, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harbarth, S.; Fankhauser, C.; Schrenzel, J.; Christenson, J.; Gervaz, P.; Bandiera-Clerc, C.; Renzi, G.; Vernaz, N.; Sax, H.; Pittet, D. Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Hospital Admission and Nosocomial Infection in Surgical Patients. JAMA 2008, 299, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Friberg, O.; Svedjeholm, R.; Söderquist, B.; Granfeldt, H.; Vikerfors, T.; Källman, J. Local gentamicin reduces sternal wound infections after cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2005, 79, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Eklund, A.M. Prevention of sternal wound infections with locally administered gentamicin. APMIS Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. 2007, 115, 1022–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Raja, S.G. Local application of gentamicin-containing collagen implant in the prophylaxis and treatment of surgical site infection following cardiac surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2012, 10, S10–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Chang, W.K.; Srinivasa, S.; MacCormick, A.D.F.; Hill, A.G.F. Gentamicin-Collagen Implants to Reduce Surgical Site Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Ann. Surg. 2013, 258, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Costa Almeida, C.E.P.; Reis, L.; Carvalho, L.; Costa Almeida, C.M. Collagen implant with gentamicin sulphate reduces surgical site infection in vascular surgery: A prospective cohort study. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1100–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Holdsworth, J. Treatment of infective and potentially infective complications of vascular bypass grafting using gentamicin with collagen sponge. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 1999, 81, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Johnson, J.H. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. AORN J. 1992, 56, 347–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stewart, A.H.; Eyers, P.S.; Earnshaw, J.J. Prevention of infection in peripheral arterial reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 2007, 46, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Pitt, H.A.; Postier, R.G.; MacGowan, A.W.; Frank, L.W.; Surmak, A.J.; Sitzman, J.V.; Bouchier-Hayes, D.A.V.I.D. Prophylactic antibiotics in vascular surgery. Topical, systemic, or both? Ann. Surg. 1980, 192, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bratzler, D.W.; Dellinger, E.P.; Olsen, K.M.; Perl, T.M.; Auwaerter, P.G.; Bolon, M.K.; Fish, D.N.; Napolitano, L.M.; Sawyer, R.G.; Slain, D.; et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2013, 70, 195–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Mohammed, S.; Pisimisis, G.T.; Daram, S.P.; Bechara, C.F.; Barshes, N.R.; Lin, P.H.; Kougias, P. Impact of intraoperative administration of local vancomycin on inguinal wound complications. J. Vasc. Surg. 2013, 57, 1079–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cernohorsky, P.; Reijnen, M.M.P.J.; Tielliu, I.F.J.; van Sterkenburg, S.M.M.; 586 van den Dungen, J.J.A.M.; Zeebregts, C.J. The relevance of aortic endograft prosthetic infection. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 54, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Chehab, M.A.; Thakor, A.; Tulin-Silver, S.; Connolly, B.L.; Cahill, A.M.; Ward, T.J.; Padia, S.A.; Kohi, M.P.; Midia, M.; Brody, L.; et al. Adult and Pediatric Antibiotic Prophylaxis during Vascular and IR Procedures: A Society of Interventional Radiology Practice Parameter Update Endorsed by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 29, 1483–1501.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Diekema, D.J.; Edmond, M.B. Look before you leap: Active surveillance for multidrug resistant organisms. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2007, 44, 1101–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Malde, D.J.; Abidia, A.; McCollum, C.; Welch, M. The success of routine MRSA screening in vascular surgery: A nine year review. Int. Angiol. 2006, 25, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Hussain, S.T. Local application of gentamicin-containing collagen implant in the prophylaxis and treatment of surgical site infection following vascular surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2012, 10, S5–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ruszczak, Z.; Friess, W. Collagen as a carrier for on-site delivery of antibacterial drugs. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2003, 55, 1679–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Modarai, B.; Dasgupta, P.; Taylor, J.; Koffman, G.; Khan, M.S. Follow-up of polytetrafluoroethylene arteriovenous fistulae for haemodialysis. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2005, 59, 1005–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rasheed, H.; Diab, K.; Singh, T.; Chauhan, Y.; Haddad, P.; Zubair, M.M.; Vowels, T.; Androas, E.; Rojo, M.; Auyang, P.; et al. Contemporary Review to Reduce Groin Surgical Site Infections in Vascular Surgery. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2021, 72, 578–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart for references selection on “surgical site infection” AND “vascular surgery” AND “antibiotic therapy”. STRATEGY: Query: “surgical site infection” AND “vascular surgery” AND “antibiotic therapy”; Results by years: 1980–2020; Text availability: Full text; Article attribute: Meta-analysis, RCT, Review, Systematic Review, Clinical Trial, Observational Studies, Books and Documents.
Figure 1. Flowchart for references selection on “surgical site infection” AND “vascular surgery” AND “antibiotic therapy”. STRATEGY: Query: “surgical site infection” AND “vascular surgery” AND “antibiotic therapy”; Results by years: 1980–2020; Text availability: Full text; Article attribute: Meta-analysis, RCT, Review, Systematic Review, Clinical Trial, Observational Studies, Books and Documents.
Antibiotics 11 00134 g001
Table 1. Risk of biass assessment in the included randomized studies.
Table 1. Risk of biass assessment in the included randomized studies.
StudyRandom Sequence Generation (Selction Bias)Allocation Concealment (Selection Bias)Blinding (Performance Bias and Detection Bias)Selective Reporting (Reporting Bias)Other BiasJadad Score
Bratzler DW et al., 2005 [25]HighHighHighLowLow2
McDonald M et al., 1998 [26]LowLowHighLowLow3
Patrick S et al., 2010 [27]LowLowHighLowLow3
Stone PA et al., 2015 [28]HighHighHighLowLow2
Classen DC et al., 1992 [29]LowLowHighLowLow3
Argyriou C et al., 2017 [30]HighHighHighLowLow2
Harbarth S et al., 2008 [31]HighHighHighLowLow2
Friberg O et al., 2005 [32]LowLowHighLowLow3
Eklund AM et al., 2007 [33]LowLowHighLowLow3
Raja SG et al., 2012 [34]HighHighHighLowLow2
Chang WK et al., 2013 [35]HighHighHighLowLow2
Costa Almeida CEP et al., 2014 [36]HighLowHighLowLow3
Holdsworth et al., 1999 [37]LowHighLowLowLow3
Table 2. Summary of the included study for pre-operative antibiotic therapy.
Table 2. Summary of the included study for pre-operative antibiotic therapy.
ReferencesMethodsPartecipantsInterventionOutcomesPrimary Findings
Johnson JH et al., 1992 [38]Single blinded,
randomized controlled trial
2847 patients undergoing elective clean or “clean-contaminated” surgical proceduresAdministration of antibiotics pre- v/s peri- and post-operativelySurgical-wound infectionsSSI rate of 0.6% for pre- vs. 1.4% peri- and 3.3% post-operative antibiotic administration (p less than 0.0001; relative risk, 5.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 12.3)
Bratzler DW et al., 2005 [25]Systematic review and meta-analysis22 trials of prophylactic systemic antibioticsProphylactic systemic antibiotics administrationWound infection or early graft infectionProphylactic systemic antibiotics reduced the risk of wound infection (RR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.38)
Stewart AH et al., 2007 [39]Guidelines reviewPublished North American guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis until 2002Pre- and post-operative antimicrobial prophylaxisSurgical-wound infectionsInfusion of the first antimicrobial dose should begin within 60 min before surgical incision and that prophylactic antimicrobial agents should be discontinued within 24 h of the end of surgery
Pitt HA et al., 1980 [40]Single blinded,
randomized controlled trial
217 patients scheduled for vascular surgery with groin incisionNo antibiotic v/s topical cephradine prior to closure v/s 24-h perioperative e.v. cephradine and v/s both topical and intravenous cephradine.Groin and abdominal incisional infections- Groin and abdominal incisional infections significantly reduced (p < 0.01) among patients who received prophylactic antibiotics by either the topical, systemic, or combined routes of administration.
- No significant differences were noted among the three antibiotic groups.
Bratzler DW et al., 2013 [41]Practice guidelinesPrimary literature of Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery- Single pre-incision dose of cefazolin or cefuroxime- Continuing prophylaxis.Primary prophylaxis and eradication of wound infectionRecommendation of a single pre-incision dose of cefazolin or cefuroxime with appropriate intraoperative redosing. No evidence for continuing prophylaxis until all drains and catheters are removed. Clindamycin or vancomycin as alternative in patients with b-lactam allergy. Vancomycin used for prophylaxis in patients known to be colonized with MRSA.
(Strength of evidence for prophylaxis = A)
McDonald M et al., 1998 [26]Systematic review- 28 Clinical Trials
- 9478 patients
Antimicrobial single v/s multiple dose in surgical prophylaxisPost-operative surgical site infections rate preventionNo clear advantage of either single or multiple-dose regimens of antibiotics
Stone PA et al., 2015 [28]Single center prospective double blinded randomized study178 patients were evaluated at 90 days for surgical site infectionVancomycin v/s Vancomycin + Daptomycin pre-operative administrationPost-operative SSI rate prophylaxisVancomycin supplemental prophylaxis seems to reduce the incidence of Gram-positive infection compared with adding supplemental Daptomycin prophylaxis (p = 0.11).
Patrick S et al., 2010 [27]Single institution prospective randomized study169 low-risk patients undergoing elective vascular proceduresCefazolin, cefazolin + vancomycin, or cefazolin + daptomycin surgical prophylaxisPost-operative surgical site infections rate preventionSignificant fewer infectious complications in the cefazolin + daptomycin group
Mohammed S et al., 2013 [42]Retrospective Cohort study454 patients who underwent open vascular proceduresSystemic vancomycin v/s systemic + local application of vancomycin powderInguinal wound infection and dehiscence over a 30-day periodAddition of intraoperative local vancomycin did not improve the rates of inguinal wound dehiscence or deep infections but had a positive impact on superficial wound infections
Classen DC et al., 1992 [29]Single institution prospective randomized study2847 patients undergoing elective clean surgical proceduresAntibiotic administration 2 to 24 h before the surgical incisionPost-operative surgical wound infection rateProphylactic administration of antibiotics in the two hours before surgery reduces the risk of wound infection.
Cernohorsky P et al., 2011 [43]Multicenter retrospective cohort study1431 endovascular proceduresProphylactic antimicrobial therapyIncidence of endograft infection and mortality rateEndograft infection rate below 1%, with a mortality rate of 25%. Antimicrobial therapy helps conservative treatment in selected cases of patients with an infected endograft.
Argyriou C et al., 2017 [30]Meta-Analysis12 studies reporting on 362 patientsEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)Evidence on the outcomes of graft infection after EVARSupportive medical antimicrobial treatment without surgical intervention has a significant associated mortality.
Chehab MA et al., 2018 [44]Practice guidelinesPrimary literature of Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Vascular and IR ProceduresProphylactic antimicrobial therapySSI antimicrobial prophylaxisRecommendation 1: intravenous (IV) antibiotic agents must be administered within 1 h of an incision.
Recommendation 2: A repeat dose of antibiotic agents should be administered if a period of 2 h has lapsed from the initial dose.
Diekema DJ. et al., 2007 [45]ReviewEvidence-based guidelinesProgram for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci among hospital patientsSteps that should be performed when planning active surveillance cultures for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococciPreparing the laboratory and reducing the turnaround time for screening tests; monitoring and optimizing the intervention of instituting contact precautions; monitoring and ameliorating the known adverse effects of contact precautions.
Harbarth S et. al., 2008 [31]Prospective, interventional cohort study. Clinical trial754 patientsCompare rapid MRSA screening on admission plus standard infection control measures vs. standard infection control alonePerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis of MRSA carriers and topical decolonization for 5 days.A universal, rapid MRSA admission screening strategy did not reduce nosocomial MRSA infection in a surgical department with endemic MRSA prevalence but relatively low rates of MRSA infection
Malde DJ et al., 2006 [46]Retrospective Cohort study280 vascular patientsData analysis of two period groups of MRSA positive vascular patientsWound infection, major limb amputation and mortality ratesMRSA screening identifies patients at risk of serious complications and is associated with a reduction in these complications following both elective and emergency surgery
Table 3. Summary of the included study for intra-operative collagen-containing gentamicin implantation (CCGI).
Table 3. Summary of the included study for intra-operative collagen-containing gentamicin implantation (CCGI).
ReferencesMethodsPartecipantsInterventionOutcomesPrimary Findings
Hussain ST et al., 2012 [47]ReviewFive publications on development of SSI in vascular surgeryProphylactic use of GCCI in fem-pop graft surgeryReduction in SSI rate incidenceGCCI have a role to play in preventing and treating SSI following vascular reconstruction.
Ruszczak Z et al., 2003 [48]ReviewPrimary literature on collagen as a biomaterial in drug delivery systems for antibioticsTreatment and prophylaxis of bone and soft tissue infectionsIncidence of SSIThe incidence of SSI was 4.3% in the treatment group and 9.0% in the control group (relative risk 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.68; p < 0.001).
Friberg O et al., 2005 [32]RCT2000 cardio-vascular surgery patientsStandard prophylaxis combined with CCGI v/s standard alone (control)Incidence of SSIThe incidence of SSI was 4.3% in the treatment group and 9.0% in the control group (relative risk 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.68; p < 0.001).
Eklund AM et al., 2007 [33]RCT557 patients who underwent elective cardio-vascular surgeryStandard prophylaxis combined with CCGI v/s standard alone (control)Incidence of SSIPostoperative SSI occurred in 11 of 272 patients (4.0%) in the study group and in 16 of 270 patients (5.9%) in the control group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.20).
Raja SG et al., 2012 [34]RCT9 publications on prophylactic use of GCCI in cardiovascular surgeryAdjunctive use of GCCI in prophylaxis of SSIMorbidity associated with SSI following surgeryThe adjunctive use of GCCI is particularly beneficial in high-risk patients and also cost saving.
Chang WK et al., 2013 [35]Meta-analysis6979 patients from major medical databases and trial registers for RCTsUse of GCCI in prophylaxis of SSIEndpoint of interest was the incidence of SSIGCCI reduced SSI [OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33–0.77; p = 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) = 21; I = 75%]. These results were seen in subset analysis of clean-contaminated surgery (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.20–0.93; p = 0.03; NNT = 9) specifically.
Modarai B et al., 2005 [49]Single institution prospective randomized studyFifty-nine upper limb PTFE grafts in 48 patientsUse of GCCI in prophylaxis of SSIIncidence of SSIThe use of prosthetic material is associated with a poor overall patency rate and high risk of infective complications.
Costa Almeida CEP et al., 2014 [36]Controlled Clinical Trial60 patients with lower limb ischaemiaGCCI in the groin incision adjacent to the prosthesisSSI rate and in-hospital daysGCCI use decreasing SSI rate and in-hospital days, and also reduce health care costs.
Rasheed et al., 2021 [50]ReviewLiterature review of preventive strategies for groin SSIAntimicrobial therapy and CCGIPost-operative SSICollagen gentamicin implants are useful in preventing surgical site infection in the groin after vascular surgical procedures.
Holdsworth J et al., 1999 [37]Single institution prospective randomized clinical trial25 patients with infective and potentially infective complications of vascular bypass graftingUse of GCCI in prevention and treatment of SSIIn situ prevention and treatment of graft infection7/11 in situ treatments of a graft infection were successfully aborted; in the other 4 grafts were removed. None of the other 14 patients treated with GCCI subsequently had infective sequelae.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Amato, B.; Compagna, R.; De Vivo, S.; Rocca, A.; Carbone, F.; Gentile, M.; Cirocchi, R.; Squizzato, F.; Spertino, A.; Battocchio, P. Groin Surgical Site Infection in Vascular Surgery: Systemic Review on Peri-Operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 134.

AMA Style

Amato B, Compagna R, De Vivo S, Rocca A, Carbone F, Gentile M, Cirocchi R, Squizzato F, Spertino A, Battocchio P. Groin Surgical Site Infection in Vascular Surgery: Systemic Review on Peri-Operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(2):134.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Amato, Bruno, Rita Compagna, Salvatore De Vivo, Aldo Rocca, Francesca Carbone, Maurizio Gentile, Roberto Cirocchi, Francesco Squizzato, Andrea Spertino, and Piero Battocchio. 2022. "Groin Surgical Site Infection in Vascular Surgery: Systemic Review on Peri-Operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis" Antibiotics 11, no. 2: 134.

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