Is sterile exposure in perianal procedures necessary? A single-institution experience and results from a national survey.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most common postoperative complications. To minimize the risk of SSI, there is a strict asepsis policy in the operating theatre. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk and cost-saving benefit of performing perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting.

Methods: All patients who had perianal surgery at our institution between January 2014 and December 2017 in a sterile (S) or non-sterile (NS) setting for an infectious or non-infectious cause were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day SSI rate. The secondary outcome was the reintervention rate. A questionnaire was sent to surgeons in the Netherlands to assess current policy with regard to asepsis in perianal procedures. Finally, a cost analysis was performed.

Results: In total, 376 patients were included. The rate of SSI in infectious procedures was 13% (S) versus 14% (NS, p = 0.853) and 5.1% (S) versus 0.9% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.071). Reintervention rates in infectious procedures were 3.4% (S) versus 8.6% (NS, p = 0.187) and 1.3% (S) versus 0.0% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.227). The questionnaire revealed that most surgeons perform perianal surgery in a sterile setting although they did not consider this useful. The potential national cost-saving benefit of a non-sterile setting is €124.61 per patient.

Conclusions: This study suggests that it is safe to perform perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting with regard to the SSI and reintervention rate. Adjustment of the current practice will contribute to a reduction in healthcare expenses.