Gabriel Birgand

Background: Office-based surgery (OBS) is increasingly used due to organizational constraints and perceived benefits. However, data on infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in OBS settings remain limited. This study aimed to assess the conditions in which OBS are performed, focusing on IPC measures. Methods: A regional audit was conducted between July 2023 and January 2024. Healthcare facilities with at least one room dedicated to OBS were eligible. Four domains were assessed: architecture and organization, cleaning procedures, patient pathways, and professional practices. Data were collected during on-site visits by IPC professionals using standardized checklists based on direct observation and interviews. Individual and composite criteria were analysed. Results: Forty OBS rooms from 15 centres (two university hospitals, eight public hospitals, and five private clinics) were included. A total of 173 procedures from 17 specialties were identified, mainly ophthalmology (33%), Ear, Nose and Throat (27%), dermatology (20%), and urology (15%). Mechanical ventilation was used in 80% of rooms and operating room-like ventilation (ISO Class 8 or 7 cleanroom) in 20%. Protocols for surgical hand disinfection by the surgeon before each procedure was present in 33% of teams. IPC training was reported by 67% of teams; 56% were trained in skin preparation and 40% in circulator roles. Skin preparation was explained to patients in 72% of pathways and documented in 44%. Public facilities scored significantly higher than private facilities for ventilation, room equipment, and patient pathway criteria (all p < 0.01). Conclusion: OBS includes diverse procedures across varied settings and is performed by teams with heterogeneous awareness regarding IPC measures. Strengthening IPC training, standardization, and documentation could improve patient safety.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a major cause of health care–associated infections, and early prediction is essential for improving patient outcomes. Machine learning (ML) has shown potential for SSI prediction; however, clinical implementation requires models that are both accurate and explainable. Despite recent progress in explainable ML, its clinical application to SSI prediction remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to map explainable ML models for SSI prediction from a clinical perspective and examine their use of structured and unstructured data across the dimensions of data, methodology, and explanation output. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance, and registered the protocol in PROSPERO. Six databases were searched for eligible studies published from January 2010 onward, without language restrictions. The search was conducted on August 9, 2025, and updated on July 14, 2026. We included studies that developed or validated an explainable ML model for predicting SSI in adults. Two reviewers (RS and YL) independently screened studies and extracted data. Findings were narratively synthesized and presented in evidence maps. Methodological quality was assessed using the PROBAST+AI (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool for prediction models using regression or artificial intelligence) methods. Results: Overall, 77 studies reporting 98 ML models were included. Most models were prognostic (72/98, 73.5%), whereas 26 focused on postoperative SSI diagnosis. A total of 81.8% (63/77) of studies addressed a single surgical specialty, most commonly gastrointestinal surgery (27/63, 42.9%). Overall, 51.9% (40/77) of studies addressed composite SSI predictions. Among all models, % (40/98) were black-box models explained by post hoc methods; SHAP combined with ensemble learning was the leading approach (18/40, 45%). Regression models accounted for half of the inherently interpretable models, interpreted using coefficients. Prognostic models commonly included health and lifestyle (60/72, 83.3%), individual characteristics, and surgical process details (both 57/72, 79.2%); health and lifestyle factors were most frequently important across SSI types. Diagnostic models commonly included surgical process details (13/26, 50%), administrative codes, and individual characteristics (both 10/26, 38.5%). Key diagnostic predictors varied by SSI types: postoperative clinical interventions predominated for composite SSI; vital signs, postoperative interventions, and administrative codes for superficial SSI; postoperative recovery status for deep SSI; and vital signs for organ-space SSI. Conclusions: Extending previous reviews focusing on model performance, this review mapped explainability methods and important features in SSI prediction, identifying recurring predictor patterns and substantial methodological heterogeneity across prognostic and diagnostic settings. Incomplete reporting of feature definitions and explanatory rationale, together with limited clinical relevance, constrained clinical interpretation and actionability. Clinician-informed reporting frameworks and validation of explanation fidelity and clinical relevance are needed to improve the trustworthiness and utility of SSI prediction models.

Les infections du site opératoire (ISO) sont classées au 3ème rang des infections associées aux soins les plus fréquentes en France. Des approches épidémiologiques " classiques " de prévention ont permis une réduction des taux d'ISO d'environ 50% en 20 ans. Malgré ces progrès, les taux d'incidence et le nombre brut d'ISO restent notables en France. De nouveaux outils permettraient d'améliorer la compréhension et la prévention des ISO. Lors d'une approche clinique de la prévention des ISO, nous avons évalué l'efficacité d'éponges de collagène imprégnées de gentamicine pour la prévention des ISO chez des patients à haut risque bénéficiant d'un pontage aorto-coronarien avec double artères mammaires internes. Des Dans un second temps, une approche, épidémiologique, avait pour objectif d'étudier l'accord des hygiénistes et des chirurgiens impliqués dans la surveillance des ISO de 10 pays Européens dans le diagnostic des ISO. La finalité était d'évaluer l'intérêt de la publication des taux d'ISO dans un objectif de benchmarking. La dernière approche était comportementale. Nous avons tout d'abord réalisé une revue systématique de la littérature afin d'évaluer l'état actuel des connaissances concernant l'impact des comportements des équipes opératoires sur la survenue d'ISO ou sur des marqueurs du risque infectieux. Enfin, nous avons présenté le protocole d'une étude en cours de réalisation sur l'évaluation des déplacements des personnels durant 63 interventions de chirurgie cardiaque et orthopédique, enregistrés de manière objective et continue par l'intermédiaire d'un système automatique de capture de mouvement. Ces données seront corrélées à des marqueurs du risque infectieux.

This survey study evaluates how surgeons in France understand their role in preventing antibiotic resistance.

Background: Although it generates a significant burden, little attention has been paid to preventing Surgical Site Infection (SSI) in digestive surgery. Objective: This study explored the factors underpinning anesthetists’ and surgeons’ attitudes toward SSI prevention in digestive surgery, focusing on their perceptions of SSI, preventive measures, guidelines, and cooperation across both specialties. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 surgeons and 19 anesthetists working in digestive surgery. Participants were approached through established mailing lists and snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically using a constant comparative approach. Results: SSI in digestive surgery was perceived as an inevitable consequence and ranked down in the priorities of surgeons. A paradox existed between the low consideration of superficial infections that are easily manageable through antibiotics and the strong awareness of the antibiotic resistance threat. Global trust appeared regarding the guidelines, but a knowledge gap of the guidelines was observed among surgeons in comparison with anesthetists. SSI ownership was perceived as collective, but the responsibility belonged to the surgeon alone. Surgeons focused on actions and short-term tasks within a culture of individualism, whereas anesthetists worked collectively with systemic approaches. Overall, the cooperation between both specialties was positive, but tightly reliant on teamwork, workload, and organization in the operating theatre. Conclusions: The cultural differences between surgeons and anesthetists should be recognized as a key overarching factor in defining their respective roles in the prevention of SSI and in establishing accountability in digestive surgery — including aspects such as adherence to guidelines, and the implementation of preventive measures.

Background: Patients with a penicillin allergy label have an increased risk of surgical site infection. Although a decision tree was published in 2019 to define which patients could benefit from direct cephalosporin use in the perioperative setting, this strategy remains unvalidated. This consensus statement aimed to adapt it based on an expert consensus to cover persisting caveats and to adapt it to an environment with poor allergist resources. Methods: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and allergy experts were invited to participate. The Delphi method was implemented using an online-secured network. The panellists were given 3 weeks to answer each round. A consensus was reached if more than 75% of the experts rated the item ≥ 7 and if less than 25% rated the item ≤ 3. Results: Sixteen experts participated. A high level of agreement was obtained after four rounds, defining four categories of the index reaction: unknown, not compatible, or compatible with an immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reaction. Twelve items were defined to stratify the risk of true penicillin allergy according to the index reaction history. The experts agreed that patients with high-risk reactions could benefit from either an allergy work-up or beta-lactam alternatives use. Those at low risk could benefit from direct cephalosporin administration. Conclusions: This resulted in an adapted decision tree to promote cephalosporin prescription in patients with penicillin allergy labels. It will be used in a stepped-wedge prospective multicentric randomized study to assess its applicability and acceptability to promote first- and second-generation cephalosporin administration in the perioperative period.