ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Surgical Site Infection Rates in Traumatic Surgical Fixation and Arthroplasty Performed in Laminar Flow Versus Non-laminar Flow Theatres During the COVID Pandemic.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defensive antibacterial coating in orthopaedic surgery: Current evidence and future direction.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Laminar flow (LF) in theatres has become the standard of care in orthopaedic implant surgery. Most of the evidence for laminar flow use is based on arthroplasty surgery, with early studies showing a significant reduction in infections. We conducted a retrospective comparative study to assess surgical site infection (SSI) rates in consecutive patients undergoing surgery for trauma in LF and non-laminar flow (NLF) theatres. Methods Due to COVID-19 safety restrictions, trauma surgery was performed in non-laminar flow theatres during the pandemic. We identified consecutive patients who had trauma surgery pre- and post-pandemic from February 2019 to June 2021 to avoid selection bias. A total of 1809 patients were identified for the study, and the relevant patient details were collected through the hospital operating theatre software (Bluespier) and patient records (Welsh Clinical Portal). There were 917 in the laminar theatre group and 892 in the non-laminar theatre group. For the purpose of this study, we recorded SSI rates within the first 90 days. The two groups were statistically similar in terms of age and gender of the patients. Results Nineteen patients developed surgical site infections in non-laminar flow theatres and 25 patients in laminar flow theatres. There was no significant difference between the SSI rate in laminar flow theatres (2.72%) as compared to non-laminar flow theatres (2.13%) (p=0.399). There was no link between infections and the duration of surgery. Two patients in the laminar flow group were MRSA-positive and were excluded. Conclusion In our study, the laminar flow theatres did not show a statistically significant reduction in surgical site infections. We conclude in the practical environment of trauma theatres the theoretical advantage of laminar flow does not translate to an observable reduction of infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.