FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Evaluation of a stent dressing and abdominal bandage on surg...
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1111/evj.14482

Evaluation of a stent dressing and abdominal bandage on surgical site infection following emergency equine laparotomy: A randomised controlled trial.

Abstract: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication following emergency equine laparotomy, negatively impacting equine welfare, increasing treatment costs and presenting a hospital biosecurity risk. Objective: To determine if a sutured-on stent dressing for incisional protection during anaesthetic recovery reduced SSI following emergency laparotomy. Methods: Randomised controlled trial. Methods: Eligible horses were randomised to a sutured-on stent (intervention) or textile dressing (control) as the primary component of a 3-layer abdominal bandage placed for anaesthetic recovery. Horses were followed up to 90 days postoperatively. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Time to SSI (primary outcome) for each group was analysed using a Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes (SSI and pyrexia during hospitalisation, days hospitalisation and incisional hernia formation at 90 days) were analysed using Chi-squared tests and a univariable logistic regression model (categorical data) or by comparing means between groups (continuous data). Results: Of 352 eligible horses enrolled (167 intervention group, 185 control group), SSI developed in 101 (28.7%) at a mean of 9.7 days (SD 4.6 days). Rate of SSI was not significantly different between groups unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.23, p = 0.4) or adjusted for variables significantly associated with rate of SSI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.30, p = 0.5). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between intervention and control groups. Conclusions: Single-centre study evaluating incisional protection from a primary dressing under a secondary adhesive and tertiary fabric abdominal bandage for anaesthetic recovery. Conclusions: Use of a sutured-on stent compared with a textile adhesive dressing as the primary layer of an abdominal bandage for anaesthetic recovery did not reduce the rate of SSI. Further RCT are warranted to investigate efficacy of other interventions on reduction of SSI following emergency laparotomy in horses.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-02-19 PubMed ID: 39967458DOI: 10.1111/evj.14482Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article evaluates whether using a sutured-on stent dressing can reduce the occurrence of surgical site infection (SSI) following emergency equine laparotomy, as compared to using a standard textile dressing. The study concluded that there was no significant difference in SSI rates between the two methods.

Research Methodology

  • The research was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of two types of surgical dressings: a sutured-on stent dressing (intervention group) and a standard textile dressing (control group).
  • This was a single-centre study where all horses were undergoing emergency laparotomy. Following surgery, each horse was either treated with the sutured-on stent dressing or the standard textile dressing.
  • A total of 352 horses were included in the trial, with 167 in the intervention group and 185 in the control group.
  • The horses were monitored for up to 90 days post-operatively to observe any occurrence of SSI.
  • The primary outcome measured was time to surgical site infection, while secondary outcomes included SSI and pyrexia during hospitalisation, days of hospitalisation, and incisional hernia formation at 90 days.

Research Findings

  • Overall, SSI developed in 101 out of the 352 horses (28.7%) at an average of 9.7 days post-surgery. The rate of SSI was not significantly different between the two groups.
  • The hazard ratio (HR), which is a measure of the hazard or chance of events occurring in the treatment group as compared to the control group, was 0.83. This means there was no significant advantage of using the sutured-on stent dressing over the standard textile dressing.
  • After accounting for variables that significantly influence the rate of SSI, the adjusted HR was still not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0.88).
  • Secondary outcomes such as SSI and pyrexia during hospitalisation, days of hospitalisation and incisional hernia formation at 90 days also showed no significant differences between the two groups.

Research Conclusions

  • The study found no evidence to suggest that using a sutured-on stent dressing can reduce the rate of SSI following emergency equine laparotomy. The rates of SSI were comparable to those observed in horses treated with a standard textile dressing.
  • The researchers concluded that further randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate other potential interventions that could help reduce the occurrence of SSI following emergency laparotomy in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Isgren CM, Pinchbeck GL, Salem SE, Hann MJ, Townsend NB, Cullen MD, Archer DC. (2025). Evaluation of a stent dressing and abdominal bandage on surgical site infection following emergency equine laparotomy: A randomised controlled trial. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14482

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Isgren, Cajsa M
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.
Pinchbeck, Gina L
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.
Salem, Shebl E
  • Department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology, and Radiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Hann, Michelle J
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.
Townsend, Neil B
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.
Cullen, Matthew D
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.
Archer, Debra C
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, Wirral, UK.

Grant Funding

  • Manufacturer (Kruuse)

References

This article includes 41 references
  1. Shearer TR, Holcombe SJ, Valberg SJ. Incisional infections associated with ventral midline celiotomy in horses.. J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2020;30:136–148.
  2. Salem S, Proudman C, Archer D. Prevention of post operative complications following surgical treatment of equine colic: current evidence.. Equine Vet J 2016;48:143–151.
  3. Christophersen MT, Tnibar A, Pihl TH, Andersen PH, Ekstrom CT. Sporting activity following colic surgery in horses: a retrospective study.. Equine Vet J 2011;43(S40):3–6.
  4. Davis W, Fogle CA, Gerard MP, Levine JF, Blikslager AT. Return to use and performance following exploratory celiotomy for colic in horses: 195 cases (2003‐2010).. Equine Vet J 2013;45:224–228.
  5. Isgren CM, Edwards T, Pinchbeck GL, Winward E, Adams ER, Norton P. Emergence of carriage of CTX‐M‐15 in faecal Escherichia coli in horses at an equine hospital in the UK; increasing prevalence over a decade (2008‐2017).. BMC Vet Res 2019;15:268.
  6. Coomer RPC, Mair TS, Edwards GB, Proudman CJ. Do subcutaneous sutures increase risk of laparotomy wound suppuration?. Equine Vet J 2007;39:396–399.
  7. Gustafsson K, Tatz AJ, Slavin RA, Sutton GA, Dahan R, Ahmad WA. Intraincisional medical grade honey decreases the prevalence of incisional infection in horses undergoing colic surgery: a prospective randomised controlled study.. Equine Vet J 2021;53:1112–1118.
  8. Smith LJ, Mellor DJ, Marr CM, Reid SWJ, Mair TS. Incisional complications following exploratory celiotomy: does an abdominal bandage reduce the risk?. Equine Vet J 2007;39:277–283.
  9. Kilcoyne I, Dechant JE, Kass PH, Nieto JE. Evaluation of the risk of incisional infection in horses following application of protective dressings after exploratory celiotomy for treatment of colic.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2019;254:1441–1447.
  10. Isgren CM, Salem SE, Archer DC, Worsman FC, Townsend NB. Risk factors for surgical site infection following laparotomy: effect of season and perioperative variables and reporting of bacterial isolates in 287 horses.. Equine Vet J 2017;49:39–44.
  11. Mair TS, Smith LJ. Survival and complication rates in 300 horses undergoing surgical treatment of colic. Part 2: short‐term complications.. Equine Vet J 2005;37:303–309.
  12. Freeman KD, Southwood LL, Lane J, Lindborg S, Aceto HW. Post operative infection, pyrexia and perioperative antimicrobial drug use in surgical colic patients.. Equine Vet J 2012;44:476–481.
  13. Tnibar A, Grubbe Lin K, Thurøe Nielsen K, Christophersen MT, Lindegaard C, Martinussen T. Effect of a stent bandage on the likelihood of incisional infection following exploratory coeliotomy for colic in horses: a comparative retrospective study.. Equine Vet J 2013;45:564–569.
  14. Scales JT, Winter GD. The adhesion of wound dressings: an experimental study.. Wound Healing 1961;54.
  15. Torfs S, Levet T, Delesalle C, Dewulf J, Vlaminck L, Pille F. Risk factors for incisional complications after exploratory celiotomy in horses: do skin staples increase the risk?. Vet Surg 2010;39:616–620.
  16. Wilson DA, Baker GJ, Boero MJ. Complications of celiotomy incisions in horses.. Vet Surg 1995;24:506–514.
  17. Kobluk CN, Ducharme NG, Lumsden JH, Pascoe PJ, Livesey MA, Hurtig M. Factors affecting incisional complication rates associated with colic surgery in horses: 78 cases (1983‐1985).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989;195:639–642.
  18. Schmidt P. Evidence‐based veterinary medicine: evolution, revolution, or repackaging of veterinary practice?. Vet Clin North Am – Small Anim Pract 2007;37:409–417.
  19. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:e1–e37.
  20. Sergeant ESG. Epitools epidemiological calculators.. Ausvet 2018.
  21. Milner PI, Bardell DA, Warner L, Packer MJ, Senior JM, Singer ER. Factors associated with survival to hospital discharge following endoscopic treatment for synovial sepsis in 214 horses.. Equine Vet J 2014;46:701–705.
  22. Louro LF, Robson K, Hughes J, Loomes K, Senior M. Head and tail rope‐assisted recovery improves quality of recovery from general anaesthesia in horses undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy.. Equine Vet J 2022;54:875–884.
  23. Isgren CM, Salem SE, Townsend NB, Timofte D, Maddox TW, Archer DC. Sequential bacterial sampling of the midline incision in horses undergoing exploratory laparotomy.. Equine Vet J 2019;51:38–44.
  24. Reid K, Pockney P, Draganic B, Smith SR. Barrier wound protection decreases surgical site infection in open elective colorectal surgery: a randomized clinical trial.. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1374–1380.
  25. SUNRRISE Study Group on behalf of the Northwest Research Collaborative and the West Midlands Research Collaborative. An international pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare a single use negative pressure dressing versus a surgeon's preference of dressing to reduce the incidence of surgical site infection following emergency laparotomy: the SUNRRISE Trial Protocol.. Colorectal Dis 2020.
    doi: 10.1111/codi.15474google scholar: lookup
  26. 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;36:309–332.
  27. Moore R, Gavaghan D, Tramèr M, Collins S, McQuay H. Size is everything ‐: large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects.. Pain 1998;78:209–216.
  28. Schulz K, Grimes D. Epidemiology 1 – sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical.. Lancet 2005;365:1348–1353.
  29. Guyatt G, Mills E, Elbourne D. In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter?. PLoS Med 2008;5:3–5.
  30. Johnston GM, Taylor PM, Holmes MA, Wood JL. Confidential enquiry of perioperative equine fatalities (CEPEF‐1): preliminary results.. Equine Vet J 1995;27:193–200.
  31. Proudman CJ, Smith JE, Edwards GB, French NP. Long‐term survival of equine surgical colic cases. Part 1: patterns of mortality and morbidity.. Equine Vet J 2002;34:432–437.
  32. Hernandez AV, Eijkemans MJ, Steyerberg EW. Randomized controlled trials with time‐to‐event outcomes: how much does prespecified covariate adjustment increase power?. Ann Epidemiol 2006;16:41–48.
  33. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;2024:MR000006.
  34. Honnas CM, Cohen ND. Risk factors for wound infection following celiotomy in horses.. JAMA 1997;210:78–81.
  35. Seidelman J, Mantyh C, Anderson D. Surgical site infection prevention a review.. JAMA 2023;329:244–252.
  36. Johnson DI. Bacterial virulence factors.. Bacterial pathogens and their virulence factors Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-67651-7_1google scholar: lookup
  37. Alverdy JC, Hyman N, Gilbert J. Re‐examining causes of surgical site infections following elective surgery in the era of asepsis.. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:E38–E43.
  38. Abbas M, Holmes A, Price J. Surgical site infections following elective surgery.. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:898–899.
  39. Hann M, Timofte D, Isgren CM, Archer DC. Bacterial translocation in horses with colic and the potential association with surgical site infection: a pilot study.. Vet Rec 2020;187:7.
  40. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
  41. Pinkney TD, Calvert M, Bartlett DC, Gheorghe A, Redman V, Dowswell G. Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial).. BMJ 2013;347:f4305.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.