The impact of preoperative skin disinfection on preventing intraoperative wound contamination

No Clear Benefit of Chlorhexidine Use at Home Before Surgical Preparation

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of home use of chlorhexidine before surgery to reduce bacterial colonization. However, these studies have provided conflicting evidence about the potential efficacy of this strategy in decreasing bacterial loads and infection rates across surgical populations, and no prior study has analyzed the benefit of this intervention before spine surgery. We prospectively analyzed the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes for decreasing bacterial counts on the posterior neck.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy adults participated in this prospective study. The right side of each participant's neck was wiped twice (the night before and the morning of the experiment) with chlorhexidine gluconate wipes. The left side was used as the control region. Bacterial swabs were obtained as a baseline upon enrollment in the study, then upon arrival at the hospital, and, finally, after both sides of the neck had received standard preoperative scrubbing.

RESULTS

All patients had positive baseline bacterial growth (median >1,000 colonies/mL). When chlorhexidine gluconate wipes were used, decreased bacterial counts were noted before the preoperative scrub, but this finding was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). All patients had zero bacteria identified on either side of their neck after completion of the preoperative scrub.

CONCLUSION

At-home use of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes did not decrease the topical bacterial burden. Therefore, using chlorhexidine gluconate wipes at home before surgery may offer no added benefit.

Application time for postoperative wound dressing following breast augmentation with implants: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Breast augmentation with silicone implants is one of the most frequently performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Surgical site infection (SSI) remains an important complication of this procedure. One of the most important risk factors for SSI is the presence of microorganisms on the skin surrounding the wound. Guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend that surgical wounds be covered with a sterile dressing for 24 to 48 hours. However, a recent study showed that the application of a dressing for six days after breast reduction reduced wound colonization by coagulase-negative staphylococci.

Methods/Design

A randomized clinical trial was designed to assess two protocols of postoperative wound care to determine how the application duration of the postoperative dressing influences wound colonization in patients undergoing breast augmentation with silicone implants. Women aged between 18 and 60 years who are candidates for breast augmentation with silicone implants will be randomly allocated to group I (n = 48), in which the dressing will be removed on the first postoperative day, or group II (n = 48), in which the dressing will be removed on the sixth postoperative day. Cutaneous colonization will be assessed by cultures of samples of skin flora taken from the wound region. The incidence of SSI, using standardized CDC criteria, and the perceptions of patients towards the dressing will be secondary outcomes.

Discussion

An important component of SSI prevention is to minimize all possible risk factors, and the application of postoperative dressing plays a key role in this endeavor. The results of this clinical trial may help to standardize postoperative wound care after breast augmentation with silicone implants.

Trial registration

This trial was registered on 12 March 2012 with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01553604).

Ototoxicity of different concentrations povidone-iodine solution applied to the middle ear cavity of rats

To investigate the ototoxic effects of different concentrations of povidone-iodine solutions applied to the middle ear cavity of rats using distortion product otoacoustic emissions. 24 healthy 3-3.5-month-old adult female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into three groups. The group A (n = 8 ears) received 5 % povidone-iodine solution to the right ear, the group B (n = 8 ears) received 7.5 % povidone-iodine solution to the right ear and the group C (n = 8 ears) received 10 % povidone-iodine solution to the right ear. All animals received saline solution to the left ear as a control (n = 24 ears). The animals were tested before, 1 and 10 days after solutions administration to the middle ear. The resulting distortion product otoacoustic emissions were evaluated at 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 kHz. Statistically significant reductions in DP-gram amplitudes were noted at high frequencies (7, 8, 10, 12 kHz) in the group A at day 1 but this effect return at day 10. In group B and group C statistically significant differences were recorded for low and high frequencies (1.5, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12 kHz) according to the control group at day 1 and 10. 7.5 and 10 % povidone-iodine showed a significant ototoxic effect on day 1 and 10. But this toxic effect could not be elicited in 5 % povidone-iodine group on day 10. The present study revealed that commercially available high concentration povidone-iodine solution may cause significant ototoxic effects when applied topically through a perforated ear drum in rats. Based on results of this experiment, high concentration povidone-iodine solutions should not be used for preoperative surgical site cleansing for otologic surgery.

Evaluation with a focus on both the antimicrobial efficacy and cumulative skin irritation potential of chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol-containing preoperative skin preparations

BACKGROUND

Important characteristics for ideal skin preparations include long-lasting antimicrobial efficacy and low potential for skin irritation.

METHODS

A total of 55 healthy adult subjects were enrolled to evaluate the antimicrobial effects of 3 test formulations applied to inguinal, abdominal, and antecubital sites at post-treatment time points of 30 seconds, 72 hours, and 7 days. To investigate skin irritation potential, the 3 formulations were tested in a 21-day repeat-insult patch test conducted on the skin of the backs of 23 healthy subjects.

RESULTS

The mean log(10) reduction (MLR) at 7 days post-treatment produced by a 79% vol/vol ethanol containing 1% wt/vol chlorhexidine gluconate (1% CHG-EtOH) applied to abdominal sites was significantly superior to that produced by a 10% povidone-iodine solution (2.45 MLR vs 0.90 MLR; P < .05). The 1% CHG-EtOH and a 70% vol/vol isopropanol containing 2% wt/vol CHG (2% CHG-IPA) provided statistically equivalent persistence at 72 hours and 7 days post-treatment. The 1% CHG-EtOH had less skin irritation potential than the 2% CHG-IPA and the 10% povidone-iodine solution, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Considering its persistent effect and low skin irritation potential, the 1% CHG-EtOH preparation is expected to perform well in surgical site preparation to reduce the risk of surgery- and catheter-related bloodstream infection.

Pediatric surgical site infection in the developing world: a Kenyan experience

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the current study was to determine the incidence of pediatric surgical site infections(SSIs) at an academic children’s hospital in rural sub-Saharan Africa and to identify potentially modifiable risk factors.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 1,008 surgical admissions to Bethany Kids Kijabe Hospital (Kijabe, Kenya) were analyzed retrospectively. Follow-up data were available in 940 subjects.

RESULTS

SSIs occurred in 6.8% of included subjects(N = 64). Superficial (69%) and deep (29%) infections of the back (38%) and head (25%) were most common. When comparing children who developed SSI to those who did not, we found that wound contamination classification and duration of operation were the only variables with significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our rate of SSI among pediatric patients insub-Saharan Africa is the lowest reported in the literature to date. More work is needed to identify modifiable risk factors for pediatric SSI in low- and middle-income countries.

Bacterial skin contamination before and after surgical preparation of the foot, ankle, and lower leg in patients with diabetes and intact skin versus patients with diabetes and ulceration: a prospective controlled therapeutic study

Eradication of bacterial flora from the foot, especially the nailfolds and toe webspaces, through surgical preparation remains a challenge. All previous studies have involved healthy patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery or healthy volunteers. However, the patient with diabetes is considered an immunocompromised host with decreased ability to combat invasive bacterial infections. The use of an efficacious surgical preparation is therefore of paramount importance. The author conducted a prospective study involving patients with diabetes with and without ulceration who underwent the current "best evidence available" surgical preparation (i.e., chlorhexidine gluconate [4%] scrub followed by alcohol impregnated with iodine [1%] solution). Qualitative aerobic cultures before and after completion of this surgical preparation technique were obtained from the hallux nailfold; second, third, and fourth toe webspaces (as one culture); and distal anterior tibia. A total of 120 organisms were cultured before surgical preparation with 64 in the elective group and 56 in the ulcerated group. The most commonly isolated organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, which was identified in 46 pre-preparation cultures (38.3%). This was followed by methicillin-sensitive S. epidermidis (16.7%) and "other" organisms (10.0%). There was a significant reduction for both numbers of organisms identified and positive cultures for the 3 most commonly isolated organisms after surgical preparation. Based on the results of this study, the surgical preparation used here appears to be an efficacious surgical preparation technique for eradicating aerobic bacterial pathogens from the foot in patients with diabetes both with and without ulceration. The high incidence of methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis found in this patient population is a cause for concern, especially when metallic fixation is intended to be implanted.

Povidone-iodine: use in hand disinfection, skin preparation and antiseptic irrigation

Iodine and its antibacterial properties have been used for the prevention or management of wound infections for over 150 years. However, the use of solutions (tincture) of iodine has been replaced by the widespread use of povidone-iodine, a water-soluble compound, which is a combination of molecular iodine and polyvinylpyrrolidone. The resultant broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity is well documented and its efficacy, particularly in relation to resistant micro-organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, has been shown. In the clinical environment, there is no general agreement regarding the 'best' antiseptic and the practice varies widely. This article reviews the studies that have assessed the efficacy of povidone-iodine in hand disinfection and skin preparation and its use as an antiseptic irrigant. Although there is a distinct lack of well-designed, randomised controlled trials evaluating antiseptic efficacy, selection should be based on the next best available evidence. This evidence suggests that the use of povidone-iodine as an agent of choice is dependent on the clinical need but is also likely to be influenced by personal preference.

Resistance of antimicrobial skin preparations to saline rinse using a seeded bacteria model

OBJECTIVE

We describe a randomized blinded study to evaluate the antimicrobial persistence following saline exposure of 2 commercially available skin antiseptic agents. One agent contained iodine povacrylex in alcohol and the second contained chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol.

METHOD

Both agents were applied to the forearms of 36 healthy subjects according to manufacturers' instructions and allowed to dry. The sites were then exposed to either a saline rinse or to a saline-saturated gauze, similar to the challenges that preps would face during most surgical procedures. Two analyses were performed: (1) An indicator organism was seeded onto the treated sites. After 30 minutes, samples were collected from the treated sites and surviving bacterial colonies were enumerated and log reductions calculated. (2) The saline-saturated gauze was analyzed chemically for presence of chlorhexidine or iodine.

RESULTS

The baseline densities (stated as logarithms of colony forming units "log CFU") of the sites to which the agents were applied had statistically equivalent microbial densities. Both agents reduced the density of organisms in a statistically significant manner. Chemical analysis of the gauze samples indicated that 35 of 36 samples had detectable chlorhexidine while no samples had detectable iodine (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that chlorhexidine is removed by saline-soaked gauze while the iodine povacrylex water-insoluble film remains intact under the same conditions. The implication is that similar results may occur in surgery when saline is used.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The second smaller study found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 0.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing. No difference was found in the postoperative SSI rate between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of no benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

A systems approach to preoperative surgical patient skin preparation

BACKGROUND

The merits of a systems approach to preoperative surgical patient skin preparation are presented. A "system" may be defined as the addition of an antiseptic bath(s) or shower(s) within 24 hours before the application of a Food and Drug Administration-compliant patient preoperative skin preparation at the time of surgery. The expected outcome from this added effort is a further reduction in the transient and normal flora that contaminate the skin surrounding the operative site, and contribute to surgical infections. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended the addition of this step to the preoperative site preparation regimen.

METHODS

A human in vivo study comparing an alcohol-based (ethanol) system to an iodine-based approach, and 2 sets of clinical observations, are presented here.

RESULTS

The data confirm the utility of the systems approach. The in vivo study demonstrates that significant reductions (> or =2 log(10)) in normal and transient flora can be achieved quickly and maintained out to 72 hours after the surgery, allowing for wound closure in a prolonged state of skin antisepsis. Clinical observations support the in vivo findings. After initiation of the system, the infection rates for the monitored procedures have decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented here delineate the merits of a systems approach to preoperative surgical patient skin preparation. This approach has a positive impact on infection rates and may reduce the additional costs associated with this preventable event.

Dressing the part

Wound care after cutaneous surgery can play an integral role in wound healing. Wound care regimens have changed dramatically over the last 35 years as the physiology of wound healing has become better understood. Foremost is the improvement in wound healing achieved by keeping the wound occluded and moist. This observation has led to an explosion of a whole new category of occlusive dressings at the surgeon's disposal in healing postoperative wounds. These dressings have numerous applications as discussed previously. Generally, for acute surgical wounds, occlusive dressings are most useful for split-thickness wounds, such as graft donor sites and after dermabrasion, chemical peel, or laser treatment, and full-thickness wounds allowed to heal by secondary intention. Occlusive dressings may have greater benefit for the treatment of chronic ulcers of varying etiologies. The different categories of dressings share the common disadvantage of being relatively expensive. For routine sutured wounds, the authors prefer the readily available and inexpensive Telfa-type dressing combined with a topical antibiotic ointment. Topical antiseptics are useful for reducing bacterial counts on intact skin in preparation for surgery. Povidone-iodine (Betadine) and chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiclens) have emerged as the two agents of choice. However, antiseptics have been shown to be toxic to healing tissue, and should not be used on open wounds. In contrast, topical antibiotic ointments are safe to use on open wounds, effective in preventing wound infections, and promote wound healing by maintaining a moist wound environment. The authors prefer the combination antibiotic ointment Polysporin for routine postoperative wound care. Antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery to prevent wound infection is appropriate in certain cases. Surgery performed on grossly contaminated or infected skin requires a full 7 to 10 day course of antibiotics. Procedures in anatomic areas considered contaminated as well as in clean areas with significant environmental or patient risk factors may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis. The choice of antibiotics should be based on the organism most likely to cause wound infection at the particular surgical site. Evidence supports giving a single preoperative dose 1 hour before surgery with a second dose possible 6 hours later if the procedure is prolonged or delayed. The risk of bacterial endocarditis after dermatologic surgery is not known. Antibiotics are indicated for any procedure on obviously infected skin, but are not routinely required for very minor procedures, such as small biopsies, on intact skin. Antibiotic prophylaxis may be prudent for those patients classified as high risk by the (AHA). The antibiotic chosen should again cover the organism most likely to cause infection. One dose can be given 1 hour before surgery and repeated 6 hours postoperatively. Finally, wound healing can be greatly impacted by what the patient does or does not do after leaving the office. Therefore, wound care instructions should be clear, detailed, and provided in both oral and written form. Information should also be provided about what to expect as the wound heals.

A review of topical agents for wounds and methods of wounding. Guidelines for wound management

This article reviews the effects of antiseptics, antimicrobials, hemostatic agents and surgical methods on the incidence of wound infection and the process of wound healing. A set of guidelines is provided to help decide what to apply topically to wounds and which method of wounding to select in order to achieve the best possible outcome in wound healing.