Role of bundled intervention in reducing surgical site infection rate in gynecologic surgeries


  • Nisha Singh Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Shweta Rai Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Shuchi Agrawal Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Gopa Banerjee Department of Microbiology, King Georges Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Renu Singh Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India



Bundled intervention, Prevention of surgical site infection, Risk factors of surgical site infection, Role, Surgical site infection


Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is most common nosocomial infection (15%) among surgical patient’s and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality. CDC (2015) provides “bundled intervention for prevention of SSI. The present study was planned to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of these bundled intervention in reducing SSI in our setup. Objectives of this study to study the effect of bundled interventions on SSI in gynaecologic surgery.

Methods: A total 50 cases  undergoing gynecological surgery in elective OT included in pilot group and bundled intervention followed  these pilot group cases compared with 50 control group operated in same OT in which bundled intervention not followed outcome measures recorded were Incidence of SSI, type of SSI, need for antibiotic usage, need for secondary suturing, duration of hospital stay.

Results: Out of 50 subjects in pilot group, five developed signs and symptoms of SSI giving an SSI rate of 10%. Out of those five, two had superficial SSI and three had deep SSI, none of the patient had organ space SSI.SSI rate in 50 cases operated in the same operating room during the same time period without use of bundled interventions (control group) was 12%.

Conclusions: Bundled approach is easy and feasible in all setups. It adds only three extra minutes to the total duration of the surgery with risk reduction of SSI.


Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27(2):97-132.

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;147:373-83.

van Walraven C, Musselman R. The surgical site infection risk score (SSIRS): a model to predict the risk of surgical site infections. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67167.

Fujii T, Tsutsumi S, Matsumoto A, Fukasawa T, Tabe Y, Yajima R, et al. Thickness of subcutaneous fat as a strong risk factor for wound infections in elective colorectal surgery: impact of prediction using preoperative CT. Digest Surg. 2010;27(4):331-5.

Cheadle WG. Risk factors for surgical site infection. Surg Infect. 2006;7 (supplement 1):S7-S11.

Soper DE, Bump RC, Hurt WG. Wound infection after abdominal hysterectomy: effect of the depth of subcutaneous tissue. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(2):465-9.

Hemsell DL, Hemsell PG, Nobles B, Johnson ER, Little BB, Heard M. Abdominal wound problems after hysterectomy with electrocautery versus scalpel subcutaneous incision. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1993;1(1):27-31.

Johnson MP, Kim SJ, Langstraat CL, Jain S, Habermann EB. Using bundled interventions to reduce surgical site infection after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):1135-44.

Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Classen D, Arias KM, Podgorny K, Burstin H, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(suppl 1):S51-61.

Lake AG, McPencow AM, Dick- Biascoechea MA, Martin DK, Erekson EA. Surgical site infection after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:490.e1-9.

Young H, Berumen C, Knepper B, Miller A, Silverman M, Gilmartin H, et al. Statewide collaboration to evaluate the effects of blood loss and transfusion on surgical site infection after hysterectomy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33:90-3.

Chelmow D, Huang E, Strohbehn K. Closure of the subcutaneous dead space and wound disruption after caesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002;11:403-8.

Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J, Hodgkins PM, Lincoln T. Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:412-6.

Eason E, Wells G, Garber G, Hemmings R, Luskey G, Gillett P, Martin M, Vaginal antisepsis for abdominal hysterectomy study group (other members listed in the acknowledgements). Antisepsis for abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine gel. An Inter J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111(7):695-9.

Tanner J, Norrie P, Melen K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(11):CD004122.

Uppal S, Harris J, Al-Niaimi A, Swenson CW, Pearlman M. Prophylactic antibiotic choice and risk of surgical site infection after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:321-9.

Pop-Vicas A, Musuuza JS, Schmitz M, Al-Niaimi A, Safdar N. Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection post-hysterectomy in a tertiary care center. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(3):284-7.

Erekson EA, Yip SO, Ciarleglio MM, Fried TR. Postoperative complications after gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118:785-93.

Mahdi H, Gojayev A, Buechel M, Knight J, SanMarco J, Lockhart D, et al. Surgical site infection in women undergoing surgery for gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:779.






Original Research Articles