Risk factors for wound infection after minor surgery in general practice

Surgical site infection following minor surgery contributes to patient morbidity and compromises the cosmetic outcome. Most data regarding incidence and predictors of surgical site infection are based on hospital studies,1-3 and most studies looking at infection rates following minor dermatological surgery outside hospital have been conducted in specialist dermatology clinics.4-6 In contrast, the quality of evidence regarding infection rates following minor surgery in general practice seems to be poor,7 and a comprehensive MEDLINE search revealed only one study that adequately recorded the incidence of infection following minor surgery in general practice.8

Skin excisions form a large proportion of a typical Australian general practitioner’s workload, and this proportion is even greater in Queensland.9 In north Queensland, most suspicious skin lesions are managed by GPs,10 particularly in rural centres such as Mackay, where there is no resident dermatologist. There is evidence that performing minor surgery in general practice is cost-effective compared with a hospital setting.11 However, it is important to know the incidence of and risk factors for complications such as infection following minor surgery in general practice.

The data for this study were collected incidentally as part of a randomised controlled trial, which compared the standard management of keeping wounds dry and covered with allowing wounds to be uncovered and wet in the first 48 hours following minor surgery.12 As both arms of the trial showed equivalent infection rates at the 5% significance level (intervention, 8.4%; control, 8.9%), they have been considered as a single group for the purpose of this study. Our aims in this study were to determine the incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infections following minor skin excisions in a primary care setting.

The methods for our prospective study of patients presenting for minor skin excisions, conducted initially as a randomised controlled trial, have been described in detail elsewhere.12 Here we provide a general overview.

Our results suggest that diabetes, excisions from the lower leg and foot or thigh, and excisions of non-melanocytic skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma) are independent risk factors for infection after minor surgery. The latter finding is consistent with a study conducted in a specialist dermatology clinic, which suggested that oncological surgery (excision of skin cancer) is associated with a higher risk of infection.13 Body extremities, with reduced blood supply, have also previously been associated with a higher incidence of infection.13

The overall incidence of infection in our study (8.6%) was higher than we expected from published results in a similar general practice cohort (1.9%)8 and a similar dermatology clinic cohort (2%),4 although exclusion of facial excisions from our study, which may have a lower incidence of infection,13 may have falsely elevated our overall incidence of infection. Excluding patients for whom antibiotics would otherwise have been indicated postoperatively would, however, have lowered the infection rate. A German study in a university medical centre setting reported a similar infection rate of 8%.6 However, it is difficult to compare the infection rate between different studies as different variables and methods were used.5

Our study had several limitations. There are various characteristics influencing the occurrence of infections and, although information on as many variables as possible was recorded, it proved difficult to ensure that all possible predictors of infection were recorded. There were inadequate data recorded on suture size and patient occupation, and consequently, these factors could not be compared. We did not record smoking status, which may be a risk factor for surgical site infections.1,14 We also did not record the size of lesion excised, excision margins or overall wound area, and therefore we are unable to exclude the possibility that the increase in incidence of infection recorded for squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas could be related to the size of the overall wound area rather than the histology. However, there is some evidence that more complicated procedures (flaps or skin grafts) are associated with increased infection rates, rather than the size of the excision.4 Exclusion of facial excisions and more complicated surgery such as flap or two-level procedures prevented analysis of infection rates in these subgroups, and subsequent comparisons.

Although diabetes was found to be independently correlated with wound infection, the prevalence of diabetes as well as other medically important conditions was probably under-recorded, and power was limited to analyse these subgroups.

Surgical training and technique of the GPs involved are potential confounders which would be difficult to quantify and were not recorded. The differences in infection rates we observed between centres have to be seen as resulting from a combination of patient, wound, and treatment factors, as well as doctor factors.

The diagnosis of infection, even when using guidelines, is still subjective, and has inter- and intra-observer variation.15 The definition of infection we used has limitations, but it is the most widely implemented standard definition of wound infection,15 and was as close to a gold standard as we could find. We have no information regarding intra- and inter-practice reproducibility of measurement and recording procedures.

In addition, there are some limits to generalising these findings. The GPs involved were not representative of Australian GPs, being younger and more predominantly female.16 The population of Mackay is slightly older and has a lower median household income than the Australian population.17 Mackay is a provincial town in tropical north Queensland and has a hot and humid climate, with the mean daily maximum temperature ranging between 24° C and 30°C during the summer months, and a relative humidity of 75%–79%.18 Our findings may not be generalisable to a temperate climate, although there is no published evidence that heat and humidity increase infection rates.

Antibiotic prophylaxis is probably prescribed excessively or inappropriately for dermatological surgery,1,19 and is thought to be best reserved for high-risk patients.19,20 There are no data available on the current prescribing habits of Australian GPs regarding antibiotic prophylaxis for minor excisions. Although there is also no evidence available regarding what reduction in the rate of infection we might reasonably expect from the use of prophylactic antibiotics for minor excisions, there is some evidence of a 50% reduction in risk of infection when perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is used following clean surgery.21 In addition to efficacy, antibiotic costs, adverse effects and resistance must be taken into account when considering their use prophylactically. However, our results could encourage more judicial use of prophylactic antibiotics by defining high-risk groups for infection in a general practice setting, such as people with diabetes and those undergoing excision of a non-melanocytic skin cancer or excision from a lower limb. Alternatively, other non-pharmaceutical interventions aiming to reduce infection rates could be targeted towards these high-risk groups.