Research

The Perth Surgical Wound Dehiscence Risk Assessment Tool (PSWDRAT): development and prospective validation in the clinical setting

Corresponding author email:

Burn Injury Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, UWA Department of Obstetrics, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Keryln Carville

Burn Injury Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, UWA Department of Obstetrics, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Nick Santamaria

Burn Injury Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, UWA Department of Obstetrics, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Richard Parsons

Burn Injury Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, UWA Department of Obstetrics, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Gavin D. Leslie

Burn Injury Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, UWA Department of Obstetrics, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:5 Jun 2019https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.6.332

View article

Abstract

Objective:

The worldwide volume of surgery today is considerable and postoperative wound healing plays a significant part in facilitating a patient's recovery and rehabilitation. While contemporary surgical procedures are relatively safe, complications such as surgical wound dehiscence (SWD) or breakdown of the incision site may occur despite advances in surgical techniques, infection control practices and wound care. SWD impacts on patient mortality and morbidity and significantly contributes to prolonged hospital stay. Preoperative identification of patients at risk of SWD may be valuable in reducing the risk of postoperative wound complications.

Method:

A three-phase study was undertaken to determine risk factors associated with SWD, develop a preoperative patient risk assessment tool and to prospectively validate the tool in a clinical setting. Phases 1 and 2 were retrospective case control studies. Phase 1 determined variables associated with SWD and these informed the development of a risk assessment tool. Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression were applied to identify predictors of surgical risk. Phase 2 used the receiver operator curve statistic to determine the predictive power of the tool. Phase 3 involved a prospective consecutive case series validation to test the inter-rater reliability and predictive power of the tool.

Results:

In addition to those already identified in the literature, one independent risk predictor for SWD was identified: previous surgery in the same anatomical location (p<0.001, odds ratio [OR] 4). Multiple combined factors were integrated into the tool and included: age (p<0.019, OR 3), diabetes (p<0.624, OR 2), obesity (p<0.94, OR 1.4), smoking (p<0.387, OR 2), cardiovascular disease (p<0.381 OR 3) and peripheral arterial disease (p<0.501, OR 3). The predictive power of the tool yielded 71% in a combined data sample.

Conclusion:

Patients with previous surgery in the same anatomical location were four times more likely to incur a dehiscence. Identification of at-risk patients for complications postoperatively is integral to reducing SWD occurrence and improving health-related outcomes following surgery.

References

1 Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G et al.. Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ 2016; 94(3):201–209F. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.159293 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Leaper DJ, van Goor H, Reilly J et al.. Surgical site infection - a European perspective of incidence and economic burden. Int Wound J 2004; 1(4):247–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4801.2004.00067.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 van Ramshorst GH, Nieuwenhuizen J et al.. Abdominal wound dehiscence in adults: development and validation of a risk model. World J Surg 2010; 34(1):20–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0277-y Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4 Ridderstolpe L, Gill H, Granfeldt H et al.. Superficial and deep sternal wound complications: incidence, risk factors and mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001; 20(6):1168–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00991-5 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 de Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V et al.. Surgical site infection: Incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 2009; 37(5):387–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.12.010 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Spiliotis J, Tsiveriotis K, Datsis AD et al.. Wound dehiscence: is still a problem in the 21th century: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg 2009; 4(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-4-12 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Goldstein D. Mosbys medical and nursing dictionary. Lippincott & Williams, 1984 Google Scholar
8 McDonald WS, Brame M, Sharp C, Eggerstedt J. Risk factors for median sternotomy dehiscence in cardiac surgery. South Med J 1989; 82(11):1361–1364. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-198911000-00008 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Salehi Omran A, Karimi A, Ahmadi SH et al.. Superficial and deep sternal wound infection after more than 9000 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG): incidence, risk factors and mortality. BMC Infect Dis 2007; 7(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-7-112 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 McGregor WE, Trumble DR, Magovern JA. Mechanical analysis of midline sternotomy wound closure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117(6):1144–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70251-5 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Seiler CM, Diener MK. Which abdominal incisions predispose for incisonal hernias? Der Chirurg 2010; 81(3):186–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-009-1816-7 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. BMJ 1982; 284(6320):931–933. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.284.6320.931 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Webster C, Neumayer L, Smout R et al..; National Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Prognostic models of abdominal wound dehiscence after laparotomy. J Surg Res 2003; 109(2):130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4804(02)00097-5 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Buja A, Zampieron A, Cavalet S et al.. An update review on risk factors and scales for prediction of deep sternal wound infections. Int Wound J 2012; 9(4):372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00896.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Uçkay I, Agostinho A, Belaieff W et al.. Noninfectious wound complications in clean surgery: epidemiology, risk factors, and association with antibiotic use. World J Surg 2011; 35(5):973–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-0993-y Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care–associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36(5):309–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O et al.. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173(22):2039–2046. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18 Leaper DJ, van Goor H, Reilly J et al.. Surgical site infection - a European perspective of incidence and economic burden. Int Wound J 2004; 1(4):247–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4801.2004.00067.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Guest JF, Ayoub N, McIlwraith T et al.. Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK. BMJ Open 2015; 5(12):e009283. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009283 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20 McLaws ML, Taylor PC. The Hospital Infection Standardised Surveillance (HISS) programme: analysis of a two-year pilot. J Hosp Infect 2003; 53(4):259–267. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1361 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 Tanner J, Khan D, Aplin C et al.. Post-discharge surveillance to identify colorectal surgical site infection rates and related costs. J Hosp Infect 2009; 72(3):243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.03.021 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22 Leaper D, Tanner J, Kiernan M. Surveillance of surgical site infection: more accurate definitions and intensive recording needed. J Hosp Infect 2013; 83(2):83–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2012.11.013 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23 Sandy-Hodgetts K, Leslie GD, Lewin G et al.. Surgical wound dehiscence in an Australian community nursing service: time and cost to healing. J Wound Care 2016; 25(7):377–383. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2016.25.7.377 Link, Google Scholar
24 Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985; 313(13):793–799. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198509263131306 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25 Haley RW. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients: developing valid measures of intrinsic patient risk. Am J Med 1991; 91(3 3b):S145–S151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(91)90360-A Crossref, Google Scholar
26 Augenstein VA, Colavita PD, Wormer BA et al.. CeDAR: Carolinas Equation for Determining Associated Risks. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221(4):S65–S66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.145 Crossref, Google Scholar
27 Berger RL, Li LT, Hicks SC et al.. Development and validation of a risk-stratification score for surgical site occurrence and surgical site infection after open ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217(6):974–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.003 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Fisher DA, Bengero LL, Clapp BC, Burgess M. A randomized, prospective study of total hip wound closure with resorbable subcuticular staples. Orthopedics 2010 Sep;33(9):665. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20100722-12 Medline, Google Scholar
29 Fowler VG Jr, O'Brien SM, Muhlbaier LH et al.. Clinical predictors of major infections after cardiac surgery. Circulation 2005; 112(9 Suppl):I358–I365. Medline, Google Scholar
30 Ivanov J, Borger MA, Rao V, David TE. The Toronto Risk Score for adverse events following cardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2006; 22(3):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0828-282X(06)70900-X Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31 Kohli M, Yuan L, Escobar M et al.. A risk index for sternal surgical wound infection after cardiovascular surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24(1):17-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/502110 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32 Liang MK, Goodenough CJ, Martindale RG et al.. External validation of the ventral hernia risk score for prediction of surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2015; 16(1):36–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2014.115 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
33 Nashef S, Roques F, Hammill BG et al.. Validation of European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) in North American cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 22(1):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(02)00208-7 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34 Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B et al.. POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality. Br J Surg 1998; 85(9):1217–1220. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00840.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
35 Fischer JP, Wink JD, Tuggle CT et al.. Wound risk assessment in ventral hernia repair: generation and internal validation of a risk stratification system using the ACS-NSQIP. Hernia 2015; 19(1):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1318-5 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
36 National Health and Medical Research Council tARCatAV-CC. National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (Updated May 2015). Commonwealth of Australia, 2015 Google Scholar
37 Council NHMRC. Guidelines approved under Section 95A of the Privacy Act 1988. Canberra ACT: Commonwealth of Australia 2001 Google Scholar
38 Olsen MA, Chu-Ongsakul S, Brandt KE et al.. Hospital-associated costs due to surgical site infection after breast surgery. Arch Surg 2008; 143(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2007.11 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
39 Waqar SH, Malik ZI, Razzaq A et al.. Frequency and risk factors for wound dehiscence/burst abdomen in midline laparotomies. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2005; 17(4):70–73 Medline, Google Scholar
40 Basha SL, Rochon ML, Quiñones JN et al.. Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at caesarean delivery. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 2010; 203(3):285.e1-.e8. Crossref, Google Scholar
41 Borger MA, Rao V, Weisel RD et al.. Deep sternal wound infection: risk factors and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 65(4):1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00063-0 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
42 Sharma M, Fakih MG, Berriel-Cass D et al.. Harvest surgical site infection following coronary artery bypass grafting: Risk factors, microbiology, and outcomes. Am J Infect Control 2009; 37(8):653–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.12.012 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
43 Biancari F, Tiozzo V. Staples versus sutures for closing leg wounds after vein graft harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 2010; (5):CD008057. Google Scholar
44 Schimmer C, Reents W, Berneder S et al.. Prevention of sternal dehiscence and infection in high-risk patients: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86(6):1897–1904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.08.071 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
45 Dahl RM, Wetterslev J, Jorgensen LN et al.. The association of perioperative dexamethasone, smoking and alcohol abuse with wound complications after laparotomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2014; 58(3):352–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12270 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
46 Fang A, Hu SS, Endres N, Bradford DS. Risk factors for infection after spinal surgery. Spine 2005; 30(12):1460–1465. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000166532.58227.4f Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
47 Kean J. The effects of smoking on the wound healing process. J Wound Care 2010; 19(1):5–8. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.1.46092 Link, Google Scholar
48 Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2012; 147(4):373–383. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.5 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
49 Mäkelä JT, Kiviniemi H, Juvonen T, Laitinen S. Factors influencing wound dehiscence after midline laparotomy. Am J Surg 1995; 170(4):387–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80309-2 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
50 Johnson LB, Jorgensen LN, Adawi D et al.. The effect of preoperative radiotherapy on systemic collagen deposition and postoperative infective complications in rectal cancer patients. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48(8):1573–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0066-0 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
51 Riou JP, Cohen JR, Johnson H Jr. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg 1992; 163(3):324–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(92)90014-I Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
52 WHO. World Health Organization International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems (10th edn). WHO, 1992 Google Scholar
53 Parsons RW, Jamrozik KD, Hobbs MS, Thompson DL. Early identification of patients at low risk of death after myocardial infarction and potentially suitable for early hospital discharge. BMJ 1994; 308(6935):1006–1010. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6935.1006 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
54 Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45(1-2):23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00115-X Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
55 Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing. Prentice Hall, 1997 Google Scholar
56 Minichiello V, Sullivan G, Greenwood K, Axford R. Handbook of Research Methods for Nursing and Health Sciences (2nd edn). Pearson Australia, 2003 Google Scholar
57 Carville K. Wound Care Manual (5th edn). Silver Chain Foundation, 2007 Google Scholar
58 O'Gorman TW, Woolson RF. On the efficacy of the rank transformation in stepwise logistic and discriminant analysis. Stat Med 1993; 12(2):143–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780120206 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
59 Sorensen LT, Karlsmark T, Gottrup F. Abstinence from smoking reduces incisional wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2003; 238(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000074980.39700.31 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
60 Streeter NB. Considerations in prevention of surgical site infections following cardiac surgery: when your patient is diabetic. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006; 21(3):E14–E20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005082-200605000-00014 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
61 Stryker LS, Abdel MP, Morrey ME et al.. Elevated postoperative blood glucose and preoperative hemoglobin A1C are associated with increased wound complications following total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95(9):808–814. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00494 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
62 Williams TK, Rosato EL, Kennedy EP et al.. Impact of obesity on perioperative morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208(2):210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.019 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
63 Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med 2013; 4(2):627–635 Medline, Google Scholar
64 Troidl HSpitzer HMcPeek B Det al. (eds) Principles and practices of research: Strategies for Surgical Investigators (2nd edn). Springer Verlag, 1991 Crossref, Google Scholar
65 Goodwin LD, Prescott PA. Issues and approaches to estimating interrater reliability in nursing research. Res Nurs Health 1981; 4(3):323–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770040308 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
66 Sanada H, Moriguchi T, Miyachi Y et al.. Reliability and validity of DESIGN, a tool that classifies pressure ulcer severity and monitors healing. J Wound Care 2004; 13(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2004.13.1.26564 Link, Google Scholar

2 June 2019Volume 28Issue 6

ISSN (print): 0969-0700
ISSN (online): 2052-2916

Metrics

Downloaded 133 times

History

Published online 5 June 2019

Published in print 2 June 2019

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgements:

This study was supported by a research grant from the Wound Management Innovation Co-operative Research Centre (WMICRC) as well as in-kind contributions from the Silver Chain Group, Curtin University, Royal Melbourne Hospital and St John of God Healthcare, Subiaco. The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the research nurses and in particular Ms Cheryl Penter and Ms Sally Gorman at St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Professor Cameron Platell, the staff and patients that participated in the study.

PDF download