Abstract
Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is the most frequent source of infection in surgical patients and the second most frequent cause of hospital-acquired infection. The primary aim of this prospective study was to compare SSI occurrences between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open urological surgery. Secondly, perioperative outcomes were evaluated in two different approaches. A consecutive group of 60 patients undergoing urological surgery were prospectively enrolled in a single high-volume center between May and October 2018. We included procedures that were performed by minimally invasive or traditional techniques. We evaluated and compared the incidence of SSI and perioperative outcomes in terms of intraoperative bleeding, post-operative complications, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment, time to flatus, time of oral intake and mobilization, and length of hospital stay. The two groups were homogeneous with regard to demographic data. Superficial incisional SSIs were diagnosed in 10% of cases (3/30) in the second group and 0% in the first (p<0.05); space/organ SSIs developed in 4 patients, which were diagnosed by ultrasound scan and confirmed by abdominal CT: 1 patient (3.3%) in group 1 showed an infected lymphocele, whereas 1 case of infected lymphocele and 2 cases of pelvic abscess were detected in group 2 (10%, p<0.05). All the perioperative outcomes as well as were overall complication rate favored MIS (p<0.05). The use of minimally invasive techniques in urological surgery reduced the risk of SSI by comparison with a traditional approach. In addition, MIS was associated with better perioperative outcomes and a lower overall complication rate.