Are horse age and incision length associated with surgical site infection following equine colic surgery?

It is our clinical impression that age and incision length are more strongly associated with surgical site infection (SSI) following colic surgery than skin closure or wound protection method. Therefore, the objective of this observational clinical cohort study was to identify the risks for SSI in horses undergoing colic surgery. Data collection included pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables. Variables with P < 0.2 following univariable analysis were used in a logistic regression multivariable model. Variables with P<0.05 were included in the final model. Odds ratios (OR; 95% confidence intervals, 95% CI) were determined. The area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver-operator characteristic was calculated. The final multivariable model included breed (P = 0.008), incision length (P = 0.004), surgical procedure classification (P < 0.001), and postoperative (PO) colic (P = 0.037; overall model P < 0.001, and AUC was 0.81 [excellent discrimination between SSI vs. no SSI]). Warmbloods (OR 12.0; 95% CI 2.7-74.8), American breeds (OR 6.4; 95% CI 1.2-43.0), and Thoroughbreds (4.5; 95% CI 1.1-25.5) more commonly had SSI than other breeds (ponies/miniature horses, Draft breeds, Standardbreds, Arabians, and Crossbreeds [referent]). A higher SSI rate was associated with incision lengths >27 cm (3.7; 95% CI 1.5-9.9), heavily contaminated procedures (12.0; 95% CI 3.3-49.9), and horses with PO colic (2.7; 95% CI 1.1-6.8). SSI appeared to be more common after heavily contaminated procedures and in horses with PO colic, which probably resulted in more incisional contamination and trauma. Some breeds appeared to have higher odds of SSI. Age was not associated with SSI. The risk of developing SSI was higher for horses with an incision >27 cm; therefore, surgeons are encouraged to use the minimum incision length required to accomplish the necessary abdominal exploration and bowel manipulation in the safest manner possible. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.