IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i19-20p2907-2914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of preoperative hair removal methods for the reduction of surgical site infections: a meta‐analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dingmei Shi
  • Yao Yao
  • Weifei Yu

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate the efficacy of different methods of preoperative hair removal in reducing surgical site infections. Background Surgical site infections are a major source of morbidity and prolonged hospitalisation following surgery. However, there is a lack of data regarding the impact of different preoperative hair removal techniques on the incidence of surgical site infections. Design A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Methods Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting the impact of different methods of preoperative hair removal on reducing surgical site infections were collected through databases, including the Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Elsevier, EMBASE, Nursing Consult, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang data. The articles were published from 1 January 1990–15 March 2016. Meta‐analyses were conducted with review manager version 5.0. Results Fourteen trials were included (16 comparisons) in the review, including 11 randomised controlled trials and three controlled clinical trials. Interventions in the studies were shaving, clipping, no hair removal and the use of depilatory cream. The meta‐analyses included 7278 patients, from 10 countries. Nine studies compared shaving with no hair removal, four studies compared shaving with clipping, two studies compared shaving with depilatory cream, and one study compared clipping with no hair removal. No significant differences in the frequency of surgical site infections were observed between any of the methods assessed. Conclusions No significant differences between shaving, clipping, no hair removal and depilatory cream were observed in the frequency of surgical site infections. Relevance to clinical practice Preoperative hair removal should be avoided unless necessary. When it is necessary to remove hair, the existing evidence suggests that clipping is more effective in reducing surgical site infections than shaving or depilatory cream.

Suggested Citation

  • Dingmei Shi & Yao Yao & Weifei Yu, 2017. "Comparison of preoperative hair removal methods for the reduction of surgical site infections: a meta‐analysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(19-20), pages 2907-2914, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:19-20:p:2907-2914
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gulsah Kose & Sevinc Tastan & Murat Kutlay & Orhan Bedir, 2016. "The effects of different types of hair shaving on the body image and surgical site infection in elective cranial surgery," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(13-14), pages 1876-1885, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:19-20:p:2907-2914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.