Comparison of the effect of masks and shield in incidence of wound surgical infection

Authors

Abstract

Background and objective: Wound infection usually appears on days fifth to eighth after a surgery. The most important clinical signs are: redness, increased pain, and swelling or warmth around infected area. An effective way to reduce an infection is use of surgical mask for reduction of bacterial drips splashing from one's mouth or nose. This study was done to compare the effect of masks and shield in incidence of wound surgical infection
 
Materials and Methods: This study, which is considered as an observetional study, was done to compare the role of surgical mask and face shields in a wound infection. A number of 807 individuals participated in this study. A group of 404 patients was under surgery with use of mask and 403 patients had no use of mask (shield group). In shield or no mask group, individuals under study were in access and in group of mask, individuals under study were selected the same as first group. The required information were also gathered from abservation and interview.     
 
Results: In patients who have been under surgery with face shield, infection was observed in 26 individuals (6.5%) and in patients under surgery with mask, 34 individuals had wound infections (8.4%). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.34).    
 
Conclution: According to this study, there was a 2% reduction of infection for the face shield comparing with use of mask but, this amount is negligible statistically. Therefore there is no privilege of using face shield to mask to prevent a surgical wound infection. 

Keywords

References

1. Wilmore, DW. ACS surgery: principles and practice. 1st. Edn. New York, USA, WebMD Corporation 2002; 50-100. 2. Soltani Arabshahi S, Haji Nasrollah E, Beyhaghi A. A Survey on the Risk Factors of Surgical Wound Infection. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences 2005; 12 (46):313-321. 3. Mosadegh Rad A. Khalaj F. The impact of quality management in reducing surgical site infection: an action research. Journal of Medical Council of Iran 2015; 33(2): 110-118. 4. Brunicardi, F, Andersen D, Billiar T, Dunn D, Hunter J. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. Tenth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education 2014. 5. Alwitry A, Jackson E, Chen H, Holden R. The use of surgical facemasks during cataract surgery: is it necessary? British Journal of Ophthalmology 2002; 86(9): 975–977. 6. Romney MG. Surgical face masks in the operating theatre: re-examining the evidence. Journal of Hospital Infection 2001; 47(4):251-6. 7. Belkin, NL The surgical mask: Is it still necessary? Journal of Surgery 1997; 122 641–2. 8. Mahfoozpour S, Mosadegh Rad A, Bahadori Monfared A, Torab Jahromi L. Effect of implementation “Nosocomial Infection Management Model” on reduction of nosocomial infections at Hospital of Jahrom: An action research study. Journal of Health Promotion Management 2015; 5 (1):30-39 9. Davoudi Badabi A, Khorashadizadeh H, Aarabi M, Alian S, Ghafari R, Habibi V, et al. Risk Factors for Infection following Coronary Artery Bypass. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 2015; 25 (131):79-86. 10. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review. Canadian Operating Room Nursing Journal 2005; 23(3): 20-1. 11. Sjøl A1, Kelbaek H. Is use of surgical caps and masks obsolete during percutaneous heart catheterization? Ugeskrift for Laeger 2002; 164(12): 1673-5. 12. Tunevall TG. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study. World Journal of Surgery 1991; 15(3): 383-7. 13. Chamberlain GV, Houang E. Trial of the use of masks in the gynaecological operating theatre. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1984; 66(6): 432–433.
Daneshvar Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 4 - Serial Number 131
November and December 2017
Pages 25-30

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics