Abstract
Surgical site infections are among the most common healthcare associated infections worldwide and pose a significant risk in cesarean section procedures, which are the most frequently performed surgical operations globally. Our scoping review aimed to synthesize available literature from studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa on the prevalence of post-caesarean surgical site infections, as well as on reported associated factors. In this scoping review we included studies retrieved in OVID from January 2014 to January 15, 2024 without restrictions on the language of publication or publication status focusing on studies from sub-Saharan African countries. The review was registered on the Open Science Framework platform. The reported rates of surgical site infection across the 73 included studies ranged from 2.0%–56.0%. A forest plot showed that the studies were highly heterogeneous, whereby only 11.0% showed a surgical site infection rate above 20.0%. Most surgical site infections surfaced within two-weeks after a caesarean section. The strongest and most frequently cited risk factors were: duration of labour ≥8 h, surgical duration, multiple vaginal examinations, stored water usage, and premature rupture of membrane. The following protective factors were also determined: Pfannenstiel/transversal incisions, caesarean section at term, having health insurance, normal body mass index, <1 h of surgical intervention, <24 h of premature rupture of membrane, low intraoperative blood loss and absorbable sutures. Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly isolated pathogen among studies with bacteriological reporting. Our scoping review provides first guidance for regions with limited resources for surveillance, such as sub-Saharan Africa, by outlining most common associated factors and a minimum screening period of two weeks. While utilizing minimal resources effectively, this targeted surveillance could capture the majority of cases and thereby enhancing maternal patient safety.
Systematic Review Registration:
Introduction
Surgical site infections (SSIs) in general are a major cause for post-surgical mortality and morbidity (). With a global incidence between 3.0 and 15.0% (), SSIs are among the most common healthcare associated infections worldwide (). In low-resource settings, there are limited surveillance systems and hence scarce data on prevalence and associated factors of SSIs (), but existing evidence suggests highest prevalence rates up to 30.9% in the African region (). The most commonly performed operations around the world are caesarean sections (CSs) (). In the African region, up to 20.0% of CSs result in SSIs leading to increased maternal morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays and higher treatment costs (). A recent systematic review and meta analysis on SSIs after CS reports global risk factors related to comorbidities. These reported risk factors were obesity, diabetes, hypertension, prolonged hospital stays, inappropriate timing of antibiotics, and environmental factors such as overcrowded living conditions and improper hygiene (). In the African region, there is currently no comprehensive review on SSIs and their risk factors following caesarean section. For the African region, up to now there is no review on SSIs and associated risk factors after CS.
Our scoping review aims to synthesize literature on prevalence of SSIs after CS across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), while elucidating associated risk and protective factors. This summarization of available evidence and hence deeper understanding of associated factors can potentially guide SSA healthcare stakeholders such as hospitals and practitioners in risk assessment and mitigation for increased maternal patient safety.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) () and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (). We adapted our search strategy for the African continent from the strategy used by Barth and colleagues () in conjunction with the definition of SSA from the World Bank (). The protocol including the search strategy was published on Open Science Framework (OSF) (). At the time the protocol was uploaded, no similar reviews were registered in either OSF or PROSPERO. We searched the platform OVID for publications between January 2014 and January 15, 2024 without restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. We used Rayyan () for deduplication and EndNote X7 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) for screening and study selection (conducted by AB, RW and SM). Screening of titles and abstracts for assessment as well as screening of full text against the inclusion criteria for the review was done in pairs by the research team (AB, RW, SM, SW). Any disagreement arising at each stage of the selection process was resolved through discussion with first and supervisory authors. Studies were considered eligible if they included women who received CSs in health settings in SSA. All types of studies, including clinical trials, cohort or case-control studies were included. In the case of intervention studies, reported sample size and prevalence for the baseline were used in order to show generalisable prevalence rates. Articles in English and French were included.
Data extraction was done in double and independently by the research team (AB, RW, SM, SW) into a structured form in Microsoft Excel. The extracted variables included: author, publication year, title, journal, publication status, study type, study period, City/Country, sample size, sampling strategy, response rate, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, age, SSI prevalence, clinical appearance, sample collection, testing strategy, testing rate, type of infection, type of test, test name, factors investigated, factors associated, level of analysis and additional data. A forest plot was used to display results descriptively and given the hetereogeneity of included studies, a meta analysis was not performed.
Results
Selection of studies
The search identified a total of 395 articles; following the removal of duplicates and critical assessment of title and abstracts, 117 potentially relevant articles were identified for full-text screening (Figure 1). Application of the pre-set eligibility criteria resulted in a final inclusion of 73 articles. All included studies were conducted between January 2009 and March 2023.
Figure 1
Study characteristics
The included studies contain SSI prevalence data on 51,695 women from 20 countries across SSA, with most studies from Ethiopia (17/73), Nigeria (12/73), Rwanda (11/73) and Tanzania (9/73) (Figure 2, Table 1). The most frequently analyzed health settings were university, teaching or tertiary hospitals 37.0% (27/73), followed by referral, district or regional hospitals 32.9% (24/73). No study included private hospitals. The majority of studies included women who underwent CS at the study site regardless of the indication, whereby 5.5% (4/73) focused on emergency and 2.7% (2/73) on elective CSs only (Table 1).
Figure 2
Table 1
| Reference and Publication year | SSI Definition | City, country | Study Type | Sample size (N) | SSI prevalence % (n/N) | Follow-up (d) | Reported Appearance | Factors associated as reported (aOR, 95% CI, p-value) | Highest level of analysis | Bacteriological Reporting Yes/No |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adane, A. et al. () | CDC | Harar, Dire Dawa, Oromia, Somali, Ethiopia | Cohort | 336 | Overall: 7.7% (26/336) | 30 | 8/26 before discharge | Rupture of the membrane before CS (aOR 3.75, 95% CI: 1.85–16.6) | Multivariate | Yes |
| Emergency: 14.9% (17/114) | 18/26 through follow-up and readmission | |||||||||
| Elective: 4.1% (9/222) | ||||||||||
| Alemye, T. et al. () | CDC | Harar, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 1,069 | Overall: 12.3% (131/1,069) | 30 | NR | General anesthesia (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.34–3.02), rupture of membrane before CS (aOR 1.91, 95% CI: 1.18–3.09), post-operative hospital stay > 7d (aOR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.61–3.64), blood transfusion (aOR 4.10, 95% CI: 2.61–6.44) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 12.9% (105/811) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 10.1% (26/258) | ||||||||||
| Ali, O. et al. () | Clinical Diagnosis | Gondar, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 818 | Overall: 12.2% (100/818) | NR | 60/100 (60.0%) after discharge | Chorioamnionitis (aOR 6.46, 95% CI: 1.82–22.71, p = 0.01), Diabetes Mellitus (aOR 6.02, 95% CI: 1.69–21.36, p = 0.005, rupture of membrane ≥ 12 h before CS (aOR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.52–5.67, p = 0.001), MSAF (aOR 2.43, 95% CI: 1.23–4.81, p = 0.011), anemia (aOR 3.44, 95% CI: 1.56–7.56, p = 0.002) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 14.0% (96/688) | ||||||||||
| 100/100 (100.0%) within 14 days | ||||||||||
| Elective: 3.1% (4/130) | ||||||||||
| Alidina, S. et al. () | NR | Lake Zone, Tanzania | Case-control | Pre-intervention: 1,120 (intervention) 1,113 (control) | Pre-intervention: intervention: 6.5% (73/1,120) | 30 | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Control: 8.1% (90/1,113) | ||||||||||
| Overall Pre-intervention:(163/2,233) | ||||||||||
| Overall pre-intervention: 2,233 | ||||||||||
| No follow-up after discharge | ||||||||||
| Post-intervention: intervention: 2.3% (23/980) | ||||||||||
| Post-intervention: 980 (intervention) | ||||||||||
| Control: 2.6% (11/427) | ||||||||||
| 427 (control) | ||||||||||
| Aulakh, A. et al. () | CDC | Gambia | Case-control | 682 | Overall: 13.2% (90/682) | 30 | 51/90 (58.0%) after discharge | Decision-to-incision time (p = 0.01), fetal status (p = 0.001), postoperative stay (p = 0.001), antibiotic regimen (p = 0.03) | Bivariate | No |
| Emergency: 12.3% (70/571) | ||||||||||
| Elective 9.1% (3/33) | ||||||||||
| Ayala, D. et al. () | CDC | Nekemte, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 382 | Overall: 8.9% (34/382) | 30 | NR | Age > 35 years (aOR 5.03, 95% CI: 1.69–14.95, p = 0.004), pregnancy-induced hypertension (aOR 5.63, 95% CI: 1.88–16.79, p = 0.002), prolonged Labor (>24 h) (aOR 4.12, 95% CI: 1.01–32.19, p = 0.048), general anesthesia (aOR 3.96, 95% CI: 1.02–15.29, p = 0.040), post-operative hemoglobin <11 g/dl (aOR 4.51, 95% CI: 1.84–11.07, p = 0.001) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 8.5% (28/328) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 11.1% (6/54) | ||||||||||
| Azeze, G. () | NR | Dahir Dar, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 383 | 7.8% (30/383) | 30 | 22/30 (73.3%) after discharge | Rupture of membrane before CS (aOR 13.9, 95% CI: 2.99–64.8, p = 0.002), vertical skin incision (longitudinal abdominal incision) (aOR 4.77, 95% CI: 1.74–13.06, p = 0.001), duration of surgery >30 m (aOR 4.9, 95% CI: 1.8–13.1, p = 0.001), Interrupted skin closure technique (aOR 6.29, 95% CI: 2.07–19.11, p = 0.002) | Multivariate | No |
| Bizuayew, H. et al. () | CDC | Gojjam zone, Northwest Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 622 | 12.4% (77/622) | 30 | NR | Residence (rural) (aOR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.29–4.09, p = 0.005), rupture of membrane >12 h (aOR 4.61, 95% CI: 2.34–9.09, p = 0.001), duration of labor >24 h (aOR 3.48, 95% CI: 1.50–8.09, p = 0.004), hypertension (aOR 3.14, 95% CI: 1.29–7.59, p = 0.011), preoperative hematocrit <30% (aOR 3.22, 95% CI: 1.25–8.31, p = 0.016) | Multivariate | No |
| Brisibe, S. et al. () | NR | Port Harcourt, South Nigeria | Cross-sectional | Site 1 | Site 1 baseline: 13.17% (54/410), follow up: 10.34% (43/416); Site 2 13.95% (42/301) | None | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Baseline: 410, Follow up: 416 Site 2: 301 | ||||||||||
| Buambo, J. et al. () | NR | Brazzaville, Congo | Cross-sectional | 1,063 | 38.4% (408/1,063) | 30 | NR | Age <25 years (aOR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.01–4.1, p = 0.04), primary education (aOR 4.1, 95% CI: 1.4–11.8, p = 0.09), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (aOR 5.9, 95% CI: 1.2–27.1, p = 0.02), PROM >6 h (aOR 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1–4.1, p = 0.02), tinted amniotic fluid (aOR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.6–7.6, p = 0.001), duration of surgery >45 min (aOR 21.1, 95% CI: 11.3–39.4, p = 0.001), no dressing (aOR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.3–4.5, p = 0.004), antibiotics (aOR 3.9, 95% CI: 2.2–6.8, p = 0.001) | Multivariate | No |
| Carshon-Marsh, R. et al. () | NR | Bo, Sierra Leone | Cohort | 599 | Overall: 7.5% (45/599) | 30 (after discharge, telephone calls) | NR | NA | NA | No |
| Mergency:7.4% (40/541) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 8.6% (5/58) | ||||||||||
| Cherian, T. et al. () | CDC | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cross-sectional | 525 | 9.9% (52/525) | 10 ± 3, call 30 | NR | NA | Multivariate | No |
| Chu, K. et al. () | CDC | Burundi, DRC, Sierra Leone | Cohort | 1,276 | 7.3% (93/1,276) | Until discharge | Median: 6 days (range 2–17) | Age <30 years (aOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2–3.6, p = 0.013), program site (Lubutu) (aOR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1–0.9, p = 0.038), PROM (aOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3–3.4, p = 0.002), neonatal death (aOR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.5–5.0, p = 0.001), antenatal hemorrhage (aOR 0.2, 95% CI: 0.05–1.0, p = 0.050) | Multivariate | No |
| Dayo-Dada, T. et al. () | NR | Ekiti State, Nigeria | Cohort | 1,224 | Overall: 16.0% (196/1,224) | NR | NR | Age (X²: 97.714, p < 0.000), Occupation (X²: 80.321, p < 0.000), Gravidity (X²: 175.768, p < 0.000), Parity (X²: 571.065, p < 0.000), Type of Cesarean Section (Emergency vs. Elective) (X²: 0.008, p < 0.000), Indication for CS (X²: 246.844, p < 0.000), Previous Scar (X²: 199.09, p < 0.000) Occupation (X²: 80.321, p < 0.000) | Bivariate | No |
| Emergency: 16.0% (146/915) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 16.2% (50/309) | ||||||||||
| De Nardo, P. et al. () | CDC | Dodoma, Tanzania | Cohort | 467 | Overall: 48.2% (225/467) | 30 | Median: 8 days | Senior doctor (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43–0.97, p < 0.04), Pfannenstiel (incision) (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18–0.5, p < 0.001), continuous intradermic (OR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15–0.45, p < 0.001) | Bivariate, none significant in multivariate | Yes |
| Emergency: 48.7% (207/425) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 43% (18/42) | ||||||||||
| Delamou, A. et al. () | CDC | Multiple districts, Guinea | Cohort | 7,394 | Overall: 7.7% (570/7,394) | NR | NR | Year of surgery:2,014 (aOR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57–0.84, p = 0.001) 2,015 (aOR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.34–0.55, p < 0.001) comorbidities (aOR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.25–1.90, p < 0.001) | Multivariate | No |
| 2013: 10.0% (331/3,331) | ||||||||||
| 2014: 7.0% (138/1,971) | ||||||||||
| 2015: 5.0% (101/2,020) | ||||||||||
| Dessu, S. et al. () | CDC | Dire Dawa, Ethiopia | Cases: 119 Controls: 357 | 476 | NA | Hospital discharge | NR | Age 20–34 years (aOR 5.4, 95% CI: 2.35–12.7), age >35 years (aOR: 8.9, 95% CI: 1.8–43.9), <4 vaginal examinations (aOR 4.2, 95% CI: 2.16–8.22), history of chorioamnionitis (aOR 5, 95% CI: 1.05–23.9), previous CS (aOR 6.2, 95% CI: 2.72–14.36), antibiotic prophylaxis (aOR 3.2, 95% CI: 1.81–5.62), perioperative haematocrit level <30% (aOR 6.9, 95% CI: 3.45–14.1), rupture of membrane >12 h (aOR 5.4, 95% CI: 1.84–15.87) | Multivariate | No |
| Cases: 119 | ||||||||||
| Controls: 357 | ||||||||||
| Di Genarro, F. et al. () | CDC | Freetown, Sierra Leone | Case-control | 2,323 | 10.9% (254/2,323) | NR | Mean 4.4 ± 1.8 days | Being single (aOR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36–1.66), abnormal BMI, low BMI (aOR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18–1.72), high BMI (aOR 1.85, 95% CI: 1.02–2.68), admitted from home (aOR 2.35, 95% CI: 2.18–2.59), unemployed (aOR 1.74, 95% CI: 1.24–2.21), low education level (aOR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.55–1.84), presenting with PROM (aOR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.18–1.88), long decision–incision time (aOR 2.08, 95% CI: 1.74–2.24), frequent missing post CS antibiotic doses (aOR 2.52, 95% CI: 2.10–2.85), previous CS (aOR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.10–1.52) | Multivariate | No |
| Dlamini, L. et al.* () | CDC | Kampala, Uganda | Randomized Clinical Trial | 432 | Overall: 56.5% (244/432) | 10 | NR | NR | Bivariate | No |
| Elbur, A. et al. () | CDC | Khartoum, Sudan | Cross-sectional | 578 | 8.3% (48/578) | 30 | NR | NR | Multivariate | No |
| Eleje, G. et al. () | NR | Ituku Ozalla/Enugu, Nigeria | Cross-sectional | Overall: 607 | Overall: 6.1% (37/607) | NR | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| During COVID-19: 228 | During COVID-19: 6.6% (15/228) | |||||||||
| Pre-COVID-19: 379 | Pre-COVID-19: 8% (22/379) | |||||||||
| Ernest, E. et al. () | CDC | Kagera/Mara regions, Tanzania | Cross-sectional | 279 | Baseline 13.9% (19/136) | Until discharge | NR | Implementation of the safe surgery interventions in both health care center (p = 0.006) and hospitals (p < 0.001) | Bivariate | No |
| Follow-up 0.7% (1/143) | ||||||||||
| Fletcher, R. et al. () | Clinical Diagnosis | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 530 | 5.7% (30/530) | ±3 (with Thermal Camera) | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Fletcher, R. et al. () | NR | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 572 | 10.8% (62/572) | 10 ± 3 | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Gajewski, J. et al. () | NR | Zambia | Randomized Control Trial | 1,314 | 1.6% (21/1,314) | NR | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Gashaw, A. et al.# () | CDC | Hawassa, Ethiopia | Cohort | 431 | All Emergency: 11.8% (51/431) | NR | <7 days | Multiple vaginal examinations >5 (aOR 6.10, 95% CI: 2.15–17.35, p = 0.001), estimated blood loss >500 ml (aOR 3.16, 95% CI: 1.19–8.38, p = 0.021) duration of labor ≥12 h (aOR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.12–13.7, p = 0.001), rupture of membrane ≥12 h (aOR 4.12, 95% CI: 1.50–11.27, p = 0.006) | Multivariate | No |
| 22/51 (43,1%) | ||||||||||
| 7–14 days | ||||||||||
| 28/51 (54,9%) | ||||||||||
| >14 days | ||||||||||
| 1/51 (2.0%) | ||||||||||
| Gelaw, K. et al. () | Clinical Diagnosis | Maichew, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 384 | 6.8% (26/384) | 30 | 20/26 (76.9%) before discharge | Labor >24 h (aOR 3.48, 95% CI: 1.25–9.68), rupture of membrane before CS (aOR 3.68, 95% CI: 1.13–11.96) midline incision compared to Pfannestiel (aOR = 5.73, 95% CI: 2.05–16.00) | Multivariate | No |
| 6/26 (23.0%) after discharge | ||||||||||
| Gentilotti, E. et al. () | CDC | Dodoma, Tanzania | Cohort | Total: 1,040 | Overall: 30.8% (320/1,040) | 30 | NR | Overall/pre-intervention: Pfannenstiel incision (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20–0.42, p < 0.001), continuous intradermic/semi-subcutaneous suture (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23–0.46, p < 0.001); Pre-intervention: higher experience of the surgeon (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43–0.97, p = 0.038) | Multivariate | Yes |
| Emergency: 31% (299/964) | ||||||||||
| Pre: 467 | Elective: 27.6% (21/76) | |||||||||
| Pre-Intervention: 48.2% (225/467) | ||||||||||
| Post: 573 | ||||||||||
| Post-Intervention: 16.6% (95/573) | ||||||||||
| Post-intervention: younger age (OR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.38–4.09, p = 0.001), absorbable stiches (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27–0.81, p = 0.006) | ||||||||||
| multivariate: lack of pre-incision antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 3.59, 95% CI: 1.92–6.70, p < 0.001), skin disinfection with Dettol/Ethanol (OR 2.40, 95% CI: 1.00–5.74, p = 0.050), absorbable suture (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28–0.97, p = 0.040), normal BMI (18,5–24,9) (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40–0.99, p = 0.045) | ||||||||||
| Gidiri, M./Ziruma, A. () | NR | Partirenyatwa/Harare, Zimbabwe | Randomized Control Trial | 232 | 4.7% (11/232) | 42 | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Hedt-Gauthier, B. et al. () | Clinical Diagnosis | Kirehe District, Rwanda | Cohort | 569 | 10.7% (61/569) | 10 | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Igwemadu, G. et al. () | NR | Keffi, Nigeria | Randomized Control Trial | 162 | 7.0% (11/162) | 14 after discharge | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Kabore, B. et al. () | NR | Fada N'Gourma/Diapage, Burkina Faso | Case-control | 198: cases: 99, controls: 99 | NR | NR | NR | Hyperthermia upon admittance (aOR 2.37, 95% CI: 1.9–5.3, p = 0.035), caput succedaneum (aOR 7.0, 95% CI: 2.5–16.7, p = 0.001) difficult extraction of the fetus (aOR 3.69, 95% CI: 1.26–6.3, p = 0.02) | Multivariate | No |
| Kasanga, M. et al. () | NR | Lusaka, Zambia | Cross-sectional | 838 | 6.0% (50/838) | NR | NR | Secondary education (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15–0.95, p < 0.038), emergency CS (OR 6.25, 95% CI: 2.83–13.80, p < 0.001), oral antibiotics post CS (OR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05–0.96, p < 0.045), performing facility (OR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02–0.17, p < 0.001), 8–15d IV antibiotic treatment (OR 18.04, 95% CI: 6.61–49.28, p < 0.001), | Bivariate | No |
| Kateera, F. et al. (45) | NR | Kirehe, Rwanda | Randomized Control Trial | 871 | 10.9% (95/871) | 30 | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Ketema, D. et al. (46) | CDC | Amhara, Ethiopia | Cohort | 520 | Overall: 25.4% (132/520) | 30 | Median: 8 days | Not able to read and write (AHR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.19–2.11), no antenatal care (AHR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.05–4.53), previous CS (AHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.11–2.31), HIV positive (AHR 1.39, 95% CI: 1.21–2.57), emergency procedure (AHR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.11–2.43), vertical skin incision (AHR 2.60, 95% CI: 1.05–6.44), rupture of membrane (AHR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.31–1.64), multiple vaginal examination (AHR 1.88, 95% CI: 1.71–3.20) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 26.3% (111/422) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 21.4% (21/98) | ||||||||||
| (IQR 5–13) | ||||||||||
| Kpagoi, S. et al. (47) | WHO protocol for surgical site infection | Bo, Sierra Leone | Cross-sectional | 596 | 2.5% (15/596) | 30 | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Lijaemiro, H. et al. (48) | CDC | Addis Ababa, Ethiopia | Cohort | 166 | 15.1% (25/166) | 30 | 1–10 days (9.4%) | One-year increment in age (aOR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.17–1.93, p < 0.001), gestational age (aOR 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00–0.29, p < 0.004), one-minute increment of duration of surgery (aOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.20, p < 0.009), ≥5 vaginal examinations (aOR 13.08, 95% CI: 1.02–168.00, p < 0.048), CS at term (aOR 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00–0.29) | Multivariate | No |
| 11–17 days (15.6%) | ||||||||||
| 25–30 days (1.4%) | ||||||||||
| Lukabwe, H. et al.* (49) | NR | Mbarara, Uganda | Randomized Control Trial | 96 | 30.2% (29/96) | 30 | NR | Pre-operative baths with Chloroxylenol (adjusted RR 0.1, 95% CI: 0.03–0.33, p < 0.001) | Multivariate | No |
| Mezemir, R. et al. (50) | CDC | Addis Abeba, Ethiopia | Cohort | 741 | 11.6% (86/741) | 30 | Mean: 9 days | 2–3 antenatal care visits (aOR 3.11, 95% CI: 1.69–5.75), delayed antenatal booking (aOR 6.99, 95% CI: 2.09–23.32), PROM (aOR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.0–4.24), multiple vaginal examinations (aOR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.35–6.92), public hospitals (aOR 11.1, 95% CI: 1.48–45.14), hospital stay <7 days (aOR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15–0.91), transversal incisions (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15–0.91) | Multivariate | Yes |
| (Range 8–10) | ||||||||||
| Mivumbi, V. et al. (51) | NR | Kigali, Rwanda | Randomized Control Trial | 132 | 3.8% (5/132) | 14 | All within 14 days (14 days was the study follow-up time) | NR | NR | Yes |
| Miyoshi, Y. et al. (52)* | NR | Zimba, Zambia | Cohort | 266 | 2.3% (6/266) | NR | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Mohammed, S. et al. (53) | CDC | Kano, Nigeria | Randomized Control Trial | 154 | Overall: 8.4% (13/154) | 30 | Mean: 7.9 ± 3.8 days | None | Bivariate | No |
| Emergency: 17.0% (8/47) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 4.7% (5/107) | NR | |||||||||
| Molla, M. et al. # (54) | CDC | Debretabor, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 334 | 8.1% 27/334) | 30 | Before discharge: 3/27 (11.1%) | Pregnancy induced hypertension (aOR 4.75, 95% CI: 1.62–13.92), chorioamnionitis (aOR 4.37, 95% CI: 1.53–12.50), midline skin incision (aOR 5.19, 95% CI: 1.87–14.37), post-operative hemoglobin l < 11 g/dc (aOR 5.28, 95% CI: 1.97–14.18) | Multivariate | No |
| Post Discharge: 24/27 (88.9%) | ||||||||||
| Mothiba, M. et al. †(55) | CDC | Pretoria, South Africa | Randomized Control Trial | 207 | 0 (0/207) | 30 | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Mpogoro, F. et al. # (56) | CDC | Mwanza, Tanzania | Cohort | 345 | 10.9% (34/312) | 30 | Median: 7 days | Hypertensive disorder (HR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4–6.4, p < 0.006); contaminated wound (HR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2–5.1, p < 0.016), multiple vaginal examinations (HR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3–5.3, p < 0.008), operation done by intern doctor (HR 4.2,95% CI: 1.8–9.5, p < 0.001), severe anemia (HR 3.8, 95% CI: 1.2–12.4, p < 0.028), duration of procedure >1 h (HR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1–4.8, p < 0.030) | Multivariate | Yes |
| (IQR: 6–9) | ||||||||||
| Mukantwari, J. et al. (57) | CDC | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 671 | 10.7% (72/671) | 30 | 11 days: 33/671 (4.9%) | Having health insurance (aOR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01–0.58, p < 0.013), higher economic status (aOR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.39–5.97, p < 0.004) | Multivariate | No |
| 30 days: 39/671 (5.8%) | ||||||||||
| Ketemaw, N./ Dereje Zeleke, B. (58) | CDC | Kaffa Zone, Ethiopia | Cohort | 368 | 10.3% (38/368) | NR | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Ngonzi, J. et al. (59) | NR | Mbarara, Uganda | Cohort | 678 | Pre-intervention: 14.5% (29/200) | Only pre-discharge follow-up | NR | NR | Bivariate | No |
| During intervention: 7.4% (17/230) | ||||||||||
| Post-intervention: 10.5% (26/248) | ||||||||||
| Ngowa, J. et al. (60) | NR | Yaoundé, Cameroun | Cohort | 460 | 1.7% (8/460) | 30 | NR | NR | Bivariate | No |
| Nguhuni, B. et al. (61) | CDC | Dodoma, Tanzania | Cohort | 374 | 12.0% (45/374) | 30 | Median: 8 days | None | NR | No |
| (IQR: 7–11) | ||||||||||
| Njoku, C. et al. (62) | CDC | Calabar, Nigeria | Cohort | 600 | Overall: 8.5% (51/600) | 30 | NR | Emergency CS (aOR 4.71, 95% CI: 3.19–5.35, p < 0.001), indication for CS (aOR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.00–1.65, p < 0.002), duration of membrane rupture (aOR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32–0.95, p < 0.002), duration of labor (aOR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.20–0.79, p < 0.001), intra-operative blood loss >1 L (aOR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.17–2.90, p < 0.048), duration of surgery <1 h (aOR 0.03, 95% CI: 0.01–0.07, p < 0.028), post-operative packed cell volume <30% (aOR 2.60, 95% CI: 1.46–4.12, p < 0.002) | Multivariate | Yes |
| Emergency: 11.0% (45/410) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 3.2% (6/190) | ||||||||||
| Nkurunziza, T. et al. (63) | NICE | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 550 | 10.9% (60/550) | 10 ± 3 | All within 10 days (10 days was the study follow-up time) | Transport cost >1.1 EUR (aOR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.31–4.49, p < 0.005), housewife (aOR 2.93, 95% CI: 1.08–7.97, p < 0.035), Skin preparation with one antiseptic (aOR 4.42, 95% CI: 1.05–18.57, p < 0.043) | Multivariate | No |
| Nkurunziza, T. et al. (64) | CDC | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 787 | POD 10 ± 3: 4.2% (30/715) | Home visit with telemedicine: 10 ± 3 | All within 10 days (10 days was the study follow-up time) | NR | NR | No |
| POD 11 ± 3: 5.4% (38/707) | ||||||||||
| Hospital visit: 11 ± 3, | ||||||||||
| Odada, D. et al. (65) | NHSN | Nairobi, Kenya | Case-control | Total: 1,262 | Overall: 2.1% (27/1,262) | 30 | Out of the 27 SSI (4 dropped due to missing information) | None | Bivariate | Yes |
| Out of 69 study participants: Emergency: 35.3% (12/34) | ||||||||||
| (69 study participants) | 14 days: 13/23 (56.0%) | |||||||||
| Elective: 31.4% (11/35) | ||||||||||
| 15–30 days: 10/23 (43.5%) | ||||||||||
| Ogah, C. et al. (66)* | NR | Abakaliki, Nigeria | Randomized Control trial | 302 (152 control, 150 intervention) | Overall: 7.3% (22/302) | 30 | Mean: 4.1 days | None | Bivariate | Yes |
| Intervention: wound infection: 5.3% (8/150) | ||||||||||
| Control: wound infection: 9.2% (14/152) | ||||||||||
| Onuzo, C. et al. (67) | CDC | Accra, Ghana | Cohort | 474 | Overall: 12.9% (61/474) | 30 | Before discharge from hospital: 13/61 (21.3%) | Being single (aOR 4.81, 95% CI: 1.21–19.17, p < 0.03), alcohol consumption >3l/week (aOR 5.97, 95% CI: 1.32–26.98, p < 0.02), duration of labor ≥ 8 h (aOR 75.67, 95% CI: 6.61–866.24, p < 0.01), emergency CS (aOR 4.66, 95% CI: 1.22–17.75, p < 0.02), stored water used for pre-operative scrub rather than running water (aOR 18.60, 95% CI: 3.55–97.56, p < 0.01), vertical midline skin incision (aOR 12.55, 95% CI: 2.14—73.63, p < 0.05) | Multivariate | Yes |
| Emergency: 16.5% (51/309) | ||||||||||
| Detected in post-discharge follow-up: 48/61 (78.8%) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 6.1% (10/165) | ||||||||||
| Median: 7 days | ||||||||||
| Onyegbule, O. et al. (68) | NR | Nnewi, Nigeria | Cross-sectional | 120 | Overall: 12.5% (15/120) | Follow-up and diagnosis done at day 4, additional follow-up not NR | Follow-up and diagnosis done at day 4, additional follow-up not NR | For emergency CS: rupture of membrane <24 h (aOR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03–0.47, p < 0.003), duration of labor <12 h (aOR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01–0.32, p < 0.001), Pfannenstiel incision (aOR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05–0.91, p < 0.038) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 20.0% (12/60) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 5.0% (3/60) | ||||||||||
| Oyeyem, N. et al. †(69) | NR | Lagos, Nigeria | Randomized Control Trial | 190 | 21.6% (41/190) | 14 days and 6 weeks | NR | None | Bivariate | No |
| Peter, E./Ali Seif, S. (70) | NR | Dodoma, Tanzania | Cross-sectional | 183 | 20.8% (38/183) | 14 | NR | Poor wound care (aOR 5.95, 95% CI:1.76–20.17, p < 0.004), earth/sand houses (aOR 4.32, 95% CI: 1.11–16.83, p < 0.03) | Multivariate | Yes |
| Rabiu, K. et al. (71) | NR | Lagos, Nigeria | Cohort | 906 | Overall: 19.4% (176/906) | Until Discharge | NR | Preoperative anemia (aOR 1.88, 95% CI: 1.03–3.41, p < 0.040, diabetes mellitus (aOR 7.94, 95% CI: 1.60–39.27, p < 0.011), HIV infection (aOR 6.34, 95% CI: 1.74–23.06, p < 0.005), prolonged operation time (aOR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.19–4.42, p < 0.013), excessive blood loss at surgery (aOR 5.05, 95% CI: 2.18–11.66, p < 0.000), chorioamnionitis (aOR 9.00, 95% CI: 1.37–59.32, p < 0.022) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 24.1% (143/594) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 10.6% (33/312) | ||||||||||
| Robb, K. et al. (72) | screening protocol | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cross-sectional | 173 | 9.8% (17/173) | 30 | NR | Lack of water (OR 2.6, p < 0.027) | Bivariate | No |
| Sawadogo, Y. et al. (73)* | Clinical Diagnosis | Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso | Cross-sectional | 1,998 | 3.5% (70/1,998) | NR | Mean: 6,7 ± 2.3 days | None | NA | Yes |
| Scherbaum, M. et al. (74) | RKI/CDC | Lambaréné, Gabon | Cohort | 80 | 6.3% (5/80) | Until discharge | All detected before discharge | NR | NR | No |
| Sway, A. et al. (75) | CDC | Kiambu, Kenya | Cohort | 600 | 6.7% (40/600) | 30 | NR | Administration of pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20–0.82, p < 0.01) | Bivariate | No |
| Ugadu, I. et al. (76) | CDC | Abakaliki, Nigeria | Randomized Control Trial | 239 | 4.6% (11/239) | 14 | NR | Preoperative cleansing on maternal infectious morbidity (RR 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05–0.36, p < 0.000) | Bivariate | No |
| Velin, L. et al. (77) | CDC | Kirehe, Rwanda | Cohort | 795 | 5.7% (45/795) | 11 ± 3 | Range: 8—14 days | NR | NR | Yes |
| Waalewijn, B. et al. (78) | NR | Sierra Leone | Cohort | 1,174 | 3.7% (36/984) | NR | NR | NR | Bivariate | No |
| Wae, M. et al. (79) | NR | Arba Minch, Ethiopia | Cohort | 416 | 12.0% (50/416) | NR | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Wendmagegn, T. et al. (80) | CDC | Mekelle, Ethiopia | Cohort | 206 | Overall: 11.7% (24/206) | NR | NR | PROM (aOR 8.82, 95% CI: 21.71–35.82, p < 0.002), prolonged labor (aOR 16.17, 95% CI: 2.85–91.82), p < 0.006), rural setting (aOR 5.67, 95% CI: 1.57–20.48), HIV positive (aOR 6.98, 95% CI: 1.38–35.27, p < 0.019), chorioamnionitis (aOR 16.17, 95% CI: 2.85–91.82, p < 0.002), blood loss <1000 ml (aOR 0.01 95% CI: 0.02–0.57, p < 0.01) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 12.4% (24/193) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 0.0% (0/13) | ||||||||||
| Westen, E. et al. (81) | NR | Lindi/ Masasi, Tanzania | Randomized Control Trial | 181 | 8.3% (15/181) | 30 | NR | NR | NR | No |
| Wodajo, S. et al. (82) | CDC | Hawassa Town, Ethiopia | Cross-sectional | 592 | 11.0% (65/592) | NR | Before discharge: 64/65 (98.4%) | Prolonged labor >24 h (aOR 6.78, 95% CI: 2.54–18.00), PROM < 12 h (aOR 5.83, 95% CI: 2.14–15.89), 1–4 digital vaginal examinations (aOR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.21–6.99), 5 digital examinations (aOR 8.59, 95% CI: 1.74–42.23), duration of surgery >1 h (aOR 12.32, 95% CI: 5.46–27.77), wound contamination class III (aOR 9.61, 95% CI: 1.84–50.06), conducted by junior professionals (GP) (aOR 7.06, 95% CI: 1.62–30.70) MSc students (aOR 8.31, 95% CI:1.79–28.52), postoperative hemoglobin <11 mg/dl (aOR 2.62, 95% CI: 1.21–5.69) | Multivariate | No |
| Woodd, S. et al. (83) | CDC | Dar es Salaam, Tanzania | Cohort | 146 | 8.2% (12/146) | 7telephone interview | NR | NR | Multivariate | No |
| Zubairu, U. et al. (84) | CDC | Zaria, Nigeria | Randomized Control Trial | 170 | 11.2% (19/170) | 14 | Mean: 10.2 ± 3.6 days | Level of education (tertiary) (aOR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08–0.75, p < 0.014), parity <4 (aOR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08–0.67, p < 0.007), no endometritis (aOR 0.10, 95% CI: 0.03–0.29, p < 0.000), no febrile morbidity (aOR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02–0.72, p < 0.020) | Multivariate | No |
| Emergency: 13.9% (14/101) | ||||||||||
| Elective: 7.2% (5/69) |
Results of included studies.
CDC, center for disease control and prevention; CI, confidence interval; AHR, adjusted hazard ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; BMI, body mass index; CD, caesarean delivery; CS, c-section; GP, general practitioner; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HR, hazard ratio; Md, median; IQR, interquartile range; MSAF, meconium-stained amniotic fluid; MSc, master of science; NA, not applicable; NHSN, national healthcare safety work; NICE, national institute for health and care excellence; NR, not reported; PCV, pac,ed cell volume; POD, post-operative day; PROM, premature rupture of membrane; RKI, Robert-Koch-Institute; RR, relative risk; SD, standard deviation; SSI, surgical site infection; WHO, world health organization.
This study only included emergency C-sections.
Studies that had both elective/emergency C-sections included, whereby SSIs only appeared in those who had an emergency C-section.
Studies which only had elective C-sections included.
In terms of study type, 43.8% (32/73) of included studies were cohort, 28.8% (21/73) cross-sectional studies and 19.2% (14/73) randomized control studies and 8.2% (6/73) case control (Table 1).
Regarding the applied SSI definition, the majority of studies (54.5%, 40/74) reported to have used the Center for Disease Control guidelines (85), but only a slim majority of 52.5% (21/40) of these also conducted patient follow-up for the full recommended 30-day period. In total, a 37.0% (27/73) minority of studies reported full tracking of patients up to 30 days regardless of the definition applied (Table 1).
SSI rate and appearance time
Reported SSI rates among studies ranged from 2.0% ()–56.0% () (Figure 3). The forest plot showed that the studies were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 100.0%, p < 0.001), and only 11.0% (8/73) of studies showed an SSI rate above 20.0% (Table 1). Regarding the indication for CSs, SSI rates for emergency CS ranged between 7.4% () and 48.7% (), whereby SSI after elective CS from 3.1% ()–43.0% ().
Figure 3
Superficial SSIs had rates as high as 100.0% and were described in 32.3% (24/73) of studies followed by 24.7% (18/73) of studies reporting deep SSIs with highest rate of 32%, and 16.4% (12/73) detailing organ SSIs with rates up to 30.9% (Table 2).
Table 2
| Publication | SSI Classification (superficial/cutaneous/incisional, deep, and organ, other) |
|---|---|
| Adane, A. et al. () | Superficial: 19/26 (73.1%) |
| Deep: 3/26 (11.5%) | |
| Organ: 4/26 (15.38%) | |
| Ali. O. et al. () | Superficial: 88/100 (88.0%) |
| Deep: 12/100 (12.0%) | |
| Organ: NA | |
| Aulukah, A. et al. () | Superficial: 88/89 (98.9%) |
| Deep: NA | |
| Organ: 1/89 (1.1%) | |
| Azeze, G./Bizuneh, A. () | Superficial: 23 (76.7%) |
| Deep: 7 (23.3%) | |
| Organ: NA | |
| Brisibe, S. F. A. et al. () | Site 1 |
| Superficial: 16/54 (29.6%) | |
| Deep: 25/54 (46.3%) | |
| Organ: 13/54 (24.1%) | |
| Site 2 | |
| Superficial: 10/42 (23.8%) | |
| Deep: 19/42 (45.2%) | |
| Organ: 13/42 (31.0%) | |
| Buambo, J. R. G. et al. () | Superficial: 90/408 (22.0%) |
| Other: Endometritis 163/408 (40.0%) | |
| Pelviperitonitis: 65/408 (16.0%) | |
| Chu, K. et al. () | Superficial: 85/93 (91.4%) |
| Deep: 7/93 (7.5%) | |
| Unknown: 1/93 (1.1%) | |
| De Nardo,P. et al. () | Superficial: 138/225 (61.4%) |
| Deep: 69/225 (30.6%) | |
| Organ/spaces: 5/225 (2.3%) | |
| Unknown: 13/225 (5.7%) | |
| Delamou, A. et al. () | Cutaneous: |
| 2013: 88.0% | |
| 2014: 93.0% | |
| 2015: 89.0% | |
| Di Genarro, F. et al. () | Superficial: 90/254 (35.4%) |
| Deep: 98/254 (38.6%) | |
| Organ/Space: 66/254 (26.0%) | |
| Gashaw A, et al. () | Superficial: 33/51 (64.7%) |
| Deep: 15/51 (29.4%) | |
| Organ/space: 3/51 (5.9%) | |
| Gentilotti, E. et al. () | Pre: |
| Superficial: 138/225 (61.3%) | |
| Deep/involving organ and/or space: 74/225 (32.9%) | |
| Post: | |
| Superficial: 80/95 (84.2%) | |
| Deep/involving organ and/or spaces: 11/95 (11.6%) | |
| Overall: | |
| Superficial: 218/320 (68.1%) | |
| Deep/Organ: 85/320 (26.6%) | |
| Lijaemiro et al. (48) | Superficial: 17/25 (68.0%) |
| Deep: 8/25 (32.0%) | |
| Mezemir, R. et al. (50) | Superficial: 81/86 (94.1%) |
| Molla, M. et al. (54) | Superficial incisional: 7/27 (27.1%) |
| Mpogoro, F. et al. (56) | Superficial: 21/34 (61.8%) |
| Organ space: 8/34 (23.5%) | |
| Deep: 5/34 (14.7%) | |
| Nguhuni, B. et al. (61) | Superficial: 42/45 (93.3%) |
| Deep: 2/45 (4.4%) | |
| Oragn/space: 1/45 (2.2%) | |
| Nkurunziza, T. et al. (63) | Superficial: 45/60 (75.0%) |
| Odada, D. et al. (65) | Superficial: 18/23 (78.3%) |
| Deep: 5/23 (21.7%) | |
| Onuzo, C. et al. (67) | Superficial: 41/61 (67,2%) |
| Deep incisional: 18/61 (29.5%) | |
| Organ space: 2/61 (3.3%) | |
| Rabiu, K. A.et al. (71) | Superficial: 139/176 (79.0%) |
| Deep: 37/176 (21.0%) | |
| Sway, A. et al. (75) | Thika: |
| Superficial: 11/12 (91.7) | |
| Organ/space: 1/12 (8.3) | |
| Kiambu: | |
| Superficial: 18/28 (64.3%) | |
| Deep: 7/28 (25.0%) | |
| Organ/Space: 3/28 (10.7%) | |
| Unknown: 1/28 (3.6%) | |
| Velin, L. et al. (77) | Superficial: 40/45 (88.9%) |
| Deep: 5/45 (11.1%) | |
| Wodajo, S. et al. (82) | Superficial: 46/65 (70.8%) |
| Deep: 17/65 (26.1%) | |
| Organ: 2/65 (2.3%) |
SSI classification in included studies.
Appearance time of an SSI was reported by 42.5% (31/73) of included studies. A majority 61.3% (19/31) of those studies stated that most SSIs appear during the first two weeks after CS. Additionally, some studies reported SSI appearance time terms of pre/post-discharge (8/31) out of which a 75% majority (6/8) of SSIs appeared during post-discharge (Table 1).
Associated factors
Associated factors in the development of SSIs were reported in 38.0% (28/73) of the studies (Table 1). Duration of labour ≥8 h presented as the strongest risk factor (aOR 75.6) (67) and was mentioned in 9.6% (7/73) of the included studies (Table 1). Extended surgical duration, mentioned six times as a risk factor, also presented a substantial risk (aOR 21.1) () (Table 1).
A high number (greater than five) of vaginal examinations was mentioned multiple times with a risk of up to 13.1 (48), as well as stored water with aOR of 18.6 (48).
Additionally, chorioamnionitis (aOR 16.2) (80), an infection of the amniotic fluid, also significantly elevated the risk of post-caesarean SSI and was mentioned in five of the included studies (Table 1).
Premature rupture of membrane (PROM), was observed in 14 of the included studies (Table 1), making it the most frequent risk factor with reported aOR of up to 13.9 (). Anaemia (also reported as low-haemoglobin/haematocrit/packed cell volume) throughout the surgical intervention was mentioned nine times (Table 1) with the highest aOR of 6.9 (). Vertical/midline skin incisions (aOR 12.6) (67) were also notably high-risk factors compared to Pfannenstiel/transversal incisions which were reported as protective factors (aOR 0.21) (68).
The analysis of protective factors for post-CS outcomes identified several key factors, whereby CS at term (aOR 0.02) (48) presented the strongest protective effect against SSIs.
Having health insurance (aOR 0.06) (57) as well as tertiary level of education (aOR 0.24) (84), demonstrated as protective factors. Within the same study, all other associated factors were found to be protective including parity <4 (aOR 0.23) (84). Women with a normal body mass index (18.5–24.9) showed a protective aOR of 0.63 ().
As opposed to the demonstrated risk factors of prolonged duration of labour, extended surgery duration and PROM, a <12 h duration of labour (aOR 0.07) (68), less than a 1 h surgical intervention (aOR 0.03) (62) and <24 h of membrane rupture (aOR 0.52) (62) were reported as protective factors.
Other surgical factors such as intraoperative blood loss of <1,000 ml (aOR 0.10) (80) and absorbable sutures (aOR 0.52) () were strong protective factors. Lastly, hospital stays of less than seven days had a protective aOR of 0.37 (50).
Bacteriological profiles
Only a minority of studies (17.8%; 13/73) reported bacteriological test results (Table 1). Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was isolated in all thirteen of the studies with detection rates of up to 52.6% (70), and three of these studies also reported Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) (, , 67) which in turn was detected in rates of up to 79.0% (, ). One study measuring a 79.0% MRSA rate was able to reduce to a rate of only 21.0% following interventive measures ().
Gram-negative bacteria were also prominent, particularly Escherichia coli which was identified in nine of the studies, and Klebsiella pneumoniae which was mentioned in seven studies, with two other studies also reporting Klebsiella species. Gram-negative bacteria was also reported as being resistant to ampicillin (100.0%), amoxicillin/clavulanate (93.0%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (78.5%) (56) and susceptible or resistant to ceftriaxone (92.1%) and cefepime (84.6%) (77).
Discussion
This scoping review has a wide geographical representation with included data from 20 SSA countries, whereby most studies came from Ethiopia and Nigeria, possibly reflecting these countries as research epicenters in the region.
Our scoping review found a varying rate of SSIs. However, a large majority reported rates equal or below 20%, reflecting the WHO reporting for the African region ().
CS are the most commonly performed major operation globally (), thus surveillance of SSI after CS can be a good starting point for SSI surveillance (). However, full patient follow-up to day 30 was only conducted in a small minority of studies, demonstrating a possible discordance between international guidelines and their feasibility in resource-limited settings. Given that the majority of SSI were diagnosed within the first two weeks after CS, this time frame could potentially be taken into consideration in the pending update to the WHO SSI surveillance protocol for resource-limited settings (). Additionally, eight studies examined SSI occurrences in relation to discharge timing, with six reporting that SSIs primarily emerged post-discharge. This highlights the need to follow-up discharged patients, especially within the first two weeks after CS.
Given the limited-resource setting in SSA, the introduction of surveillance systems could start by targeted SSI screening of patients with the risk factors identified as most frequent such as PROM, prolonged labor, duration of surgery, anemia and multiple vaginal examinations. In addition to this targeted surveillance, we would recommend considering measures to mitigate certain risk factors, such as, treating anemia, applying hygiene measures during vaginal examinations and ensuring the provision of clean water. Additionally, certain surgical techniques such as Pfannenstiel (horizontal/transversal) incisions and absorbable sutures should be prioritized given their potential to minimize foreign body reaction (86) and decrease the likelihood of SSIs. SSIs can lead to increased hospital stays, costs, morbidities and mortalities, making their prevention and prompt management a priority (87). Incorporating these protective factors into clinical practice can potentially enhance patient recovery and reduce complication rates and hospitalisation duration. Such incorporation should be done in accordance with the WHO global guidelines for SSI prevention which also specify known protective measures (88).
Our scoping review found a considerable lack in the provision of data on bacteriological profiles. This weakness is in line with recent literature, showing that only 1.0% of laboratories in SSA are formally assigned to deliver bacterial testing (). However, our synthesized data highlights Staphylococcus aureus as the most frequently reported pathogen causing SSI aligning with data from a recent meta-analysis (). This is an area of concern considering corresponding reported rates of Methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Prevalence of Gram-negative Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli also emphasizes the burden of enterobacteria in SSI.
Current literature promotes antibiotic stewardship measures such as selecting the proper antibiotic for prophylaxis in accordance with current resistance data, but acknowledges that stewardship recommendations can be difficult to implement in settings like SSA that have limited antibiotic resources and resistance data (89). These findings, therefore, highlight the urgent need for enhanced bacteriological surveillance and antimicrobial resistance monitoring to inform effective SSI management strategies in the SSA region.
Limitations
This scoping review has several limitations. Despite our inclusive approach and the inclusion of all studies conducted in SSA, only 20 out of 48 of SSA countries were represented with highest representation of Ethiopia and Nigeria. We did not limit our search to English articles, nevertheless, we were only able to retrieve two French publications. As such, we reran the OVID search using French terms, but still did not retrieve additional French articles. Our search strategy only included studies published from 2014 onwards, potentially excluding older but relevant data. Due to the lack of available data in included studies, as well as missing correlation between symptom data and SSI, and vague distinction between wound infection symptoms and other issues such as endometritis, we dropped the analysis of SSI symptom data. Lastly, no private hospitals were included in the selected studies, therefore our findings may not be applicable in those settings.
Conclusion
Findings from this study can aid those who wish to follow the WHO recommendations in using post-caesarean section SSIs as a practical entry point for healthcare associated infection surveillance. However, low reporting on aspects such as full 30-day follow-up and bacteriological testing from included studies suggests difficulty in implementation of some surveillance measures. As most reported SSIs surfaced within the first two-weeks, this time frame can be taken into consideration as a first step in surveillance implementation. Regions such as SSA that have limited-resources for surveillance and treatment can also consider targeted SSI screening of patients with frequent risk factors, and promotion of reported protective measures. Furthermore, bacteriological diagnostic capacity building is greatly needed in the region in order to improve data gaps and antibiotic treatment recommendations. Utilization of these recommendations can ideally contribute towards improved safety for women undergoing CS in SSA.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
RW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SW: Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing – original draft. MN: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. AD: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. MD: Writing – review & editing. KH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. CR: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IN: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. BD: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. MC: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. SM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was funded by the Global Health Protection Program (# ZMI5-2523GHP029) under project PAcCI (Public Health Actions Ivory Coast) and (# ZMI5-2523GHP024) under project PASQUALE (Partnership to Improve Patient Safety and Quality of Care).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Francisco Pozo Martin for his experienced insight and guidance in the drafting of this review. Additionally, we thank all the past participants of the many studies included in this scoping review.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
aOR, adjusted odds ratio; BMI, body mass index; CDC, center for disease control and prevention; CI, confidence interval; CS, caesarean section; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; JBI, Joanna Briggs institute; MRSA, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; OR, pdds ratio; OSF, open science framework; PRISMA-ScR, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews; SDGs, sustainable development Goals; SSA, sub-saharan Africa; SSI, surgical site infection; WBG, world bank group; WHO, world health organization.
References
1.
Farid MojtahediMSepidarkishMAlmukhtarMEslamiYMohammadianamiriFBehzad MoghadamKet alGlobal incidence of surgical site infections following caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. (2023) 139:82–92. 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.05.019
2.
Zuarez-EastonSZafranNGarmiGSalimR. Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges. Int J Womens Health. (2017) 9:81–8. 10.2147/IJWH.S98876
3.
WHO. Protocol for Surgical Site Infection Surveillance with a Focus on Settings with Limited Resources. Geneva: World Health Organization (2018).
4.
NejadSBAllegranziBSyedSEllisBPittetD. Health-care-associated infection in Africa: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. (2011) 89(10):757–65. 10.2471/BLT.11.088179
5.
GialdiniCChamillardMDiazVPasqualeJThangaratinamSAbalosEet alEvidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. EClinicalMedicine. (2024) 72:102632. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632
6.
TriccoACLillieEZarinWO'BrienKKColquhounHLevacDet alPRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169(7):467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850
7.
PetersMGodfreyCMcInerneyPSoaresCKhalilHParkerD. Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. In: AromatarisE, editor. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. Adelaide, SA: Joanna Briggs Institute (2015). p. 3–24.
8.
BarthDDMayosiBMJabarAEngelME. Prevalence of group A streptococcal disease in North and Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. (2015) 5(8):e008646. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008646
9.
WBG. Sub-Saharan Africa (2024). Available online at:https://data.worldbank.org/country/sub-saharan-africa(Accessed August 21, 2024).
10.
BorodovaAWoodRMüllerS. Surgical Site Infections after Caesarean Section Across sub-Sahara Africa (2024). Available online at:https://osf.io/qe7bf/(Accessed February 04, 2025).
11.
OuzzaniMHammadyHFedorowiczZElmagarmidA. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. (2016) 5(1):210. 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
12.
AdaneAGedefaLEyeberuATesfaTArkewMTsegayeSet alPredictors of surgical site infection among women following cesarean delivery in Eastern Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg. (2023) 85(4):738–45. 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000411
13.
AlemyeTOljiraLFekaduGMengeshaMM. Post cesarean section surgical site infection and associated factors among women who delivered in public hospitals in Harar city, Eastern Ethiopia: a hospital-based analytic cross-sectional study. PLoS One. (2021) 16(6):e0253194. 10.1371/journal.pone.0253194
14.
AliOKassahunDRadeBKAtnafuA. Maternal factors are important predictors for surgical site infection following cesarean section in Northwest Ethiopian. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. (2022) 13:100936. 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100936
15.
AlidinaSMenonGStaffaSJAlrejaSBarashDBarringerEet alOutcomes of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention in Tanzania's Lake Zone: a prospective, longitudinal study. Int J Qual Health Care. (2021) 33(2):mzab087. 10.1093/intqhc/mzab087
16.
AulakhAIdokoPAndersonSTGrahamW. Caesarean section wound infections and antibiotic use: a retrospective case-series in a tertiary referral hospital in the Gambia. Trop Dr. (2018) 48(3):192–9. 10.1177/0049475517739539
17.
AyalaDTolossaTMarkosJYilmaMT. Magnitude and factors associated with surgical site infection among mothers underwent cesarean delivery in Nekemte town public hospitals, western Ethiopia. PLoS One. (2021) 16(4 April 2021):e0250736. 10.1371/journal.pone.0250736
18.
AzezeGGBizunehAD. Surgical site infection and its associated factors following cesarean section in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes. (2019) 12(1):288. 10.1186/s13104-019-4325-x
19.
BizuayewHAbebeHMulluGBewuketLTsegaDAlemyeT. Post-cesarean section surgical site infection and associated factors in East Gojjam zone primary hospitals, Amhara region, North West Ethiopia, 2020. PLoS One. (2021) 16(12 December):e0261951. 10.1371/journal.pone.0261951
20.
BrisibeSFAOrdiniohaBGbeneololPK. The effect of hospital infection control policy on the prevalence of surgical site infection in a tertiary hospital in South-South Nigeria. Niger Med J. (2015) 56(3):194–8. 10.4103/0300-1652.160393
21.
BuamboJREouaniEMPotokouéNSLandouDJItouaCMokokoJCet alDeterminants associated with post-cesarean operating site infections from January 01, 2013 to June 30, 2019 at the Brazzaville university hospital center. East Afr Med J. (2019) 96(1):2296–301. Available at: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/eamj/article/view/194049
22.
Carshon-MarshRSquireJSKamaraKNSargsyanADelamouACamaraBSet alIncidence of surgical site infection and use of antibiotics among patients who underwent caesarean section and herniorrhaphy at a regional referral hospital, Sierra Leone. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19(7):4048. 10.3390/ijerph19074048
23.
CherianTHedt-GauthierBNkurunzizaTSondermanKGruendlMANihiwacuEet alDiagnosing post-cesarean surgical site infections in rural Rwanda: development, validation, and field testing of a screening algorithm for use by community health workers. Surg Infect (Larchmt). (2020) 21(7):613–20. 10.1089/sur.2020.062
24.
ChuKMaineRTrellesM. Cesarean section surgical site infections in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country study from medecins sans frontieres. World J Surg. (2015) 39(2):350–5. 10.1007/s00268-014-2840-4
25.
Dayo-DadaTOOjoAAAkporOA. Prevalence of surgical site infection among caesarean section patients in a teaching hospital in Ekiti State, Nigeria: an eight-year review. Sci Afr. (2022) 16:e01216. 10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01216
26.
De NardoPGentilottiENguhuniBVairoFChaulaZNicastriEet alPost-caesarean section surgical site infections at a Tanzanian tertiary hospital: a prospective observational study. J Hosp Infect. (2016) 93(4):355–9. 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.02.021
27.
DelamouACamaraBSSidibéSCamaraADioubatéNEl AyadiAMet alTrends of and factors associated with cesarean section related surgical site infections in Guinea. J Public Health Afr. (2019) 10(1):1–5. 10.4081/jphia.2019.818
28.
DessuSSamuelSGebremeskelFBasazinATarikuZMarkosM. Determinants of post cesarean section surgical site infection at public hospitals in Dire Dawa administration, Eastern Ethiopia: case control study. PLoS One. (2021) 16(4):e0250174. 10.1371/journal.pone.0250174
29.
Di GennaroFMarottaCPisaniLVeroneseNPisaniVLippolisVet alMaternal caesarean section infection (MACSI) in Sierra Leone: a case-control study. Epidemiol Infect. (2020) 148:e40. 10.1017/S0950268820000370
30.
DlaminiLDSekikuboMTumukundeJKojjoCOcenDWabuleAet alAntibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section at a Ugandan hospital: a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of administration time on the incidence of postoperative infections. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2015) 15(91):1–7. 10.1186/s12884-015-0514-3
31.
ElburAIYousifMAEl SayedASAAbdel-RahmanME. Misuse of prophylactic antibiotics and prevalence of postoperative wound infection in obstetrics and gynecology department in a Sudanese hospital. Health. (2014) 6(2):158–64. 10.4236/health.2014.62025
32.
ElejeGUUgwuEOEnebeJTOkoroCCOkpalaBCEzeoraNCet alCesarean section rate and outcomes during and before the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. SAGE Open Med. (2022) 10:20503121221085453. 10.1177/20503121221085453
33.
ErnestECHellarAVaralloJTibyehabwaLBertramMMFitzgeraldLet alReducing surgical site infections and mortality among obstetric surgical patients in Tanzania: a pre-evaluation and postevaluation of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention. BMJ Glob Health. (2021) 6(12):e006788. 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006788
34.
FletcherRRSchneiderGBikorimanaLRukundoGNiyigenaAMirandaEet alThe use of Mobile thermal imaging and deep learning for prediction of surgical site infection. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference, 2021 (2021). p. 5059–62.
35.
FletcherRRSchneiderGHedt-GauthierBNkurunzizaTAlayandeBRivielloRet alUse of convolutional neural nets and transfer learning for prediction of surgical site infection from color images. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference, 2021 (2021). p. 5047–50.
36.
GajewskiJCheeloMBijlmakersLKachimbaJPittalisCBrughaR. The contribution of non-physician clinicians to the provision of surgery in rural Zambia—a randomised controlled trial. Hum Resour Health. (2019) 17(60):1–8. 10.1186/s12960-019-0398-9
37.
GashawAFantuSTarekegnM. Factor associated with surgical site infection of women who undergone cesarean section in Hawassa university comprehensive specialized hospital southern Ethiopia, retrospective study design. Int J Surg Open. (2022) 44:100506. 10.1016/j.ijso.2022.100506
38.
GelawKAAwekeAMAstawesegnFHDemissieBWZelekeLB. Surgical site infection and its associated factors following cesarean section: a cross sectional study from a public hospital in Ethiopia. Patient Saf Surg. (2017) 11(1):18. 10.1186/s13037-017-0131-3
39.
GentilottiEDe NardoPNguhuniBPisciniADamianCVairoFet alImplementing a combined infection prevention and control with antimicrobial stewardship joint program to prevent caesarean section surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance: a Tanzanian tertiary hospital experience. Antimicrob Resist Infect Cont. (2020) 9(1):69. 10.1186/s13756-020-00740-7
40.
GidiriMFZirumaA. A randomized clinical trial evaluating prophylactic single-dose vs prolonged course of antibiotics for caesarean section in a high HIV-prevalence setting. J Obstet Gynaecol. (2014) 34(2):160–4. 10.3109/01443615.2013.832737
41.
Hedt-GauthierBMirandaENkurunzizaTHughesOBoatinAAGajuEet alTelemedicine for surgical site infection diagnosis in rural Rwanda: concordance and accuracy of image reviews. World J Surg. (2022) 46(9):2094–101. 10.1007/s00268-022-06597-8
42.
IgwemaduGTElejeGUEnoEEAkunaeziriUAAfolabiFAAlaoAIet alSingle-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotics prophylaxis for preventing caesarean section postpartum infections: a randomized controlled trial. Women’s Health. (2022) 18:17455057221101071. 10.1177/17455057221101071
43.
KaboréBSoudouemGSeckIMillogoTEvariste YaméogoWMKouandaS. A case-control study of risk factors for surgical site infection after cesarean delivery in eastern Burkina Faso. Int J Gynecol Obstet. (2016) 135(Supplement 1):S107–10. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.018
44.
KasangaMChilesheMMudendaSMukoshaRKasangaMDakaVet alAntibiotic prescribing patterns and prevalence of surgical site infections in caesarean section deliveries at two tertiary hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia. Pharmacol Pharm. (2022) 13(8):313–30. 10.4236/pp.2022.138024
45.
KateeraFRivielloRGoodmanANkurunzizaTCherianTBikorimanaLet alThe effect and feasibility of mHealth-supported surgical site infection diagnosis by community health workers after cesarean section in rural Rwanda: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. (2022) 10(6):e35155. 10.2196/35155
46.
KetemaDBWagnewFAssemieMAFeredeAAlamnehAALeshargieCTet alIncidence and predictors of surgical site infection following cesarean section in North-west Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. (2020) 20(1):902. 10.1186/s12879-020-05640-0
47.
KpagoiSSTKKamaraKNCarshon-MarshRDelamouAManziMKamaraRZet alAssessing changes in surgical site infections and antibiotic use among caesarean section and herniorrhaphy patients at a regional hospital in Sierra Leone following operational research in 2021. Trop Med Infect Dis. (2023) 8(8):385. 10.3390/tropicalmed8080385
48.
LijaemiroHBerhe LemlemSTesfaye DeressaJ. Incidence of surgical site infection and factors associated among cesarean deliveries in selected government hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019. Obstet Gynecol Int. (2020) 2020:9714640. 10.1155/2020/9714640
49.
LukabweHKajabwanguRMugishaDMayengoHMunyanderuBBalukuAet alEffectiveness of preoperative bath using chloroxylenol antiseptic soap on the incidence of post emergency cesarean section surgical site infection at Mbarara regional referral hospital, Uganda: a randomized controlled trial. Pan Afr Med J. (2022) 41:92. 10.11604/pamj.2022.41.92.23687
50.
MezemirROlayemiODessieY. Incidence, bacterial profile and predictors of surgical site infection after cesarean section in Ethiopia, a prospective cohort study. Int J Women’s Health. (2023) 15:1547–60. 10.2147/IJWH.S425632
51.
MivumbiVNLittleSERulisaSGreenbergJA. Prophylactic ampicillin versus cefazolin for the prevention of post-cesarean infectious morbidity in Rwanda. Int J Gynecol Obstet. (2014) 124(3):244–7. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.017
52.
MiyoshiY. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in urgent referral and non-referral cases of emergency cesarean section at a district hospital in zambia: a retrospective observational study. Pan Afr Med J. (2019) 33:324. 10.11604/pamj.2019.33.324.19832
53.
MohammedSA ShuaibuSGayaSRabiuA. The efficacy of two doses versus 7 days’ course of prophylactic antibiotics following cesarean section: an experience from Aminu Kano teaching hospital. Ann Afr Med. (2020) 19(2):103–12. 10.4103/aam.aam_39_19
54.
MollaMTemesgenKSeyoumTMelkamuM. Surgical site infection and associated factors among women underwent cesarean delivery in debretabor general hospital, northwest Ethiopia: hospital based cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2019) 19(1):317. 10.1186/s12884-019-2442-0
55.
MothibaMSTshepuwaneTCAdefolaluAOMonokoaneTS. Alexis O-ring wound retractor versus traditional metal retractors for the prevention of postcaesarean surgical site infections. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). (2023) 65(1):a5651. 10.4102/safp.v65i1.5651
56.
MpogoroFJMshanaSEMiramboMMKidenyaBRGumodokaBImirzaliogluC. Incidence and predictors of surgical site infections following caesarean sections at Bugando medical centre, Mwanza, Tanzania. Antimicrob Resist Infect Cont. (2014) 3(1):25. 10.1186/2047-2994-3-25
57.
MukantwariJGateteJdDNiyigenaAAlayandeBTNkurunzizaTMazimpakaCet alLate and persistent symptoms suggestive of surgical site infections after cesarean section: results from a prospective cohort study in rural Rwanda. Surg Infect (Larchmt). (2023) 24(10):916–23. 10.1089/sur.2023.100
58.
KetemawNDereje ZelekeB. Maternal complications and associated factors among mothers who underwent a cesarean section at Gebretsadik Shewa general hospital: an institution based cross-sectional study. Front Glob Women’s Health. (2023) 4:1091863. 10.3389/fgwh.2023.1091863
59.
NgonziJBebellLMBoatinAAOwaraganiseATiibajukaLFajardoYet alImpact of an educational intervention on WHO surgical safety checklist and pre-operative antibiotic use at a referral hospital in southwestern Uganda. Int J Qual Health Care. (2021) 33(3):mzab089. 10.1093/intqhc/mzab089
60.
NgowaJDKNgassamAFouogueFTMetogoJMedouAKasiaJM. [Early maternal complications of cesarean section: about 460 cases in two university hospitals in Yaounde, Cameroon]. Complications maternelles precoces de la cesarienne: a propos de 460 cas dans deux hopitaux universitaires de Yaounde, Cameroun.Pan Afr Med J. (2015) 21:265. 10.11604/pamj.2015.21.265.6967
61.
NguhuniBDe NardoPGentilottiEChaulaZDamianCMencariniPet alReliability and validity of using telephone calls for post-discharge surveillance of surgical site infection following caesarean section at a tertiary hospital in Tanzania. Antimicrob Resist Infect Cont. (2017) 6(1):43. 10.1186/s13756-017-0205-0
62.
NjokuCONjokuAN. Microbiological pattern of surgical site infection following caesarean section at the university of Calabar teaching hospital. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. (2019) 7(9):1430–5. 10.3889/oamjms.2019.286
63.
NkurunzizaTKateeraFSondermanKGruendlMNihiwacuERamadhanBet alPrevalence and predictors of surgical-site infection after caesarean section at a rural district hospital in Rwanda. Br J Surg. (2019) 106(2):e121–8. 10.1002/bjs.11060
64.
NkurunzizaTWilliamsWKateeraFRivielloRNiyigenaAMirandaEet almHealth-community health worker telemedicine intervention for surgical site infection diagnosis: a prospective study among women delivering via caesarean section in rural Rwanda. BMJ Glob Health. (2022) 7(7):e009365. 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009365
65.
OdadaDShahJMbithiAShahR. Surgical site infections post cesarean section and associated risk factors: a retrospective case-control study at a tertiary hospital in Kenya. Infect Prev Pract. (2024) 6(1):100333. 10.1016/j.infpip.2023.100333
66.
OgahCOAnikweCCAjahLOIkeotuonyeACLawaniOLOkorochukwuBCet alPreoperative vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine solution in preventing post-cesarean section infections in a low resource setting: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (2020) 100(4):694–703. 10.1111/aogs.14060
67.
OnuzoCNSefogahPENuamahMANtumyMOseiM-MNkyekyerK. Surgical site infections following caesarean sections in the largest teaching hospital in Ghana. Infect Prev Pract. (2022) 4(2):100203. 10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100203
68.
OnyegbuleOAkujobiCEzebialuINdukaAAnahaluIOkolieVet alDeterminants of post-caesarean wound infection in Nnewi, Nigeria. Br J Med Med Res. (2015) 5(6):767–74. 10.9734/BJMMR/2015/10297
69.
OyeyemiNOyeneyinLOluwoleAOyeyemiAAfolabiB. Post-operative management in uncomplicated caesarean delivery: a randomised trial of short-stay versus traditional protocol at the Lagos university teaching hospital, Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J. (2019) 26(1):31–7. 10.4103/npmj.npmj_166_18
70.
PeterEGAli SeifS. The influence of home environment and wound care practice on surgical site infection among post cesarean section women in Dodoma- Tanzania. Int J Africa Nurs Sci. (2022) 17:100474. 10.1016/j.ijans.2022.100474
71.
RabiuKAkinlusiFAdewunmiAAlausaTDurojaiyeI. Risk factors for postcesarean wound infection in a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. Niger Med J. (2020) 61(5):262–8. 10.4103/nmj.NMJ_1_20
72.
RobbKAHabiyakareCKateeraFNkurunzizaTDusabeLKubwimanaMet alVariability of water, sanitation, and hygiene conditions and the potential infection risk following cesarean delivery in rural Rwanda. J Water Health. (2020) 18(5):741–52. 10.2166/wh.2020.220
73.
SawadogoYAKomboigoEKiemtoreSZamaneHOuedraogoIKainDPet alParietal suppurations after cesarean section at the Yalgado OueDraogo university hospital, Burkina Faso: epidemiological clinical, therapeutic and prognostic aspects. Pan Afr Med J. (2019) 32:35. 10.11604/pamj.2019.32.35.17167
74.
ScherbaumMKöstersKMürbethRENgoaUAKremsnerPGLellBet alIncidence, pathogens and resistance patterns of nosocomial infections at a rural hospital in Gabon. BMC Infect Dis. (2014) 14:1–8. 10.1186/1471-2334-14-124
75.
SwayAWanyoroANthumbaPAikenAChingPMarutaAet alProspective cohort study on timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis for post-cesarean surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). (2020) 21(6):552–7. 10.1089/sur.2018.226
76.
UgaduIOEgedeJONwigbojiWNIgweCPNwaliASAdebayoJAet alPre-operative vs. post-operative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine and post-caesarean infectious morbidity: a randomized controlled study. J West Afr Coll Surg. (2022) 12(4):64–74. 10.4103/jwas.jwas_159_22
77.
VelinLUmutesiGRivielloRMuwanguziMBebellLMYankurijeMet alSurgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance after cesarean section delivery in rural Rwanda. Ann Glob Health. (2021) 87(1):77. 10.5334/aogh.3413
78.
WaalewijnBPvan DuinenAKoromaAPRijkenMJElhasseinMBolkanHA. Learning curve characteristics for caesarean section among associate clinicians: a prospective study from Sierra Leone. World J Surg. (2017) 41(12):2998–3005. 10.1007/s00268-017-4202-5
79.
MelkamuBWFanuelBNiguseMFelekeH. Magnitude of maternal complications and associated obstetric factors among women who gave birth by cesarean section at arba-minich general hospital, southern Ethiopia: retrospective cohort. J Public Health Epidemiol. (2017) 9(5):133–44. 10.5897/JPHE2016.0898
80.
WendmagegnTAAberaGBTsehayeWTGebresslasieKBTellaBG. Magnitude and determinants of surgical site infecion among women underwent cesarean section in Ayder comprehensive specialized hospital Mekelle City, Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia, 2016. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2018) 18(1):489. 10.1186/s12884-018-2075-8
81.
WestenEHKolkPRVan VelzenCLUnkelsRMmuniNSHamisiADet alSingle-dose compared with multiple day antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section in low-resource settings, a randomized controlled, noninferiority trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (2015) 94(1):43–9. 10.1111/aogs.12517
82.
WodajoSBelaynehMGebremedhinS. Magnitude and factors associated with post-cesarean surgical site infection at hawassa university teaching and referral hospital, southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Ethiop J Health Sci. (2017) 27(3):283–90. 10.4314/ejhs.v27i3.10
83.
WooddSLKabanywanyiAMRehmanAMCampbellOMRKagamboAMartiasiWet alPostnatal infection surveillance by telephone in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: an observational cohort study. PLoS One. (2021) 16(7):e0254131. 10.1371/journal.pone.0254131
84.
ZubairuUDAbdulMABawaUSMaduguNHGhazzaliS. Incidence, timing, and possible risk factors for post-cesarean wound infection among low-risk patients in Zaria, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. Niger J Basic Clin Sci. (2023) 20(2):177–81. 10.4103/njbcs.njbcs_20_23
85.
CDC. Surgical Site Infection Event (SSI), in National Healthcare Safety Network (2024).
86.
MaeharaYShirabeKKohnoeSEmiYOkiEKakejiYet alImpact of intra-abdominal absorbable sutures on surgical site infection in gastrointestinal and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery: results of a multicenter, randomized, prospective, phase II clinical trial. Surg Today. (2017) 47(9):1060–71. 10.1007/s00595-017-1480-3
87.
BadiaJMCaseyALPetrosilloNHudsonPMMitchellSACrosbyC. Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries. J Hosp Infect. (2017) 96(1):1–15. 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.03.004
88.
WHO. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Geneva: World Health Organization (2018). p. 184. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550475 (Accessed March 01, 2025).
89.
TadesseBTAshleyEAOngarelloSHavumakiJWijegoonewardenaMGonzálezIJet alAntimicrobial resistance in Africa: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. (2017) 17:1–17. 10.1186/s12879-017-2713-1
Summary
Keywords
surgical site infection, wound infection, caesarean, sub-Saharan Africa, scoping review
Citation
Wood R, Borodova A, Wolter S, N’Guessan M, Diallo AA, Diallo MK, Heldt K, Rocha C, Nabé I, Diané B, Cherif MS and Müller SA (2025) Surgical site infections after caesarean section across sub-Sahara Africa: a scoping review of prevalence and associated factors. Front. Glob. Women’s Health 6:1605049. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2025.1605049
Received
15 April 2025
Accepted
12 June 2025
Published
01 July 2025
Volume
6 - 2025
Edited by
Bandit Chumworathayi, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Reviewed by
Andrew Mgaya, Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania
Akmal El-Mazny, Cairo University, Egypt
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Wood, Borodova, Wolter, N’Guessan, Diallo, Diallo, Heldt, Rocha, Nabé, Diané, Cherif and Müller.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Rebekah Wood woodr@rki.de
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.