Comparing surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: A matched quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the tolerance and acceptability of alcohol-based surgical hand preparation versus handscrubbing with antimicrobial soap and water by surgeons.

METHODS

Matched quasi-experimental trial in an academic quaternary care hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, from April 1 to October, 31, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedics surgeons from the study facility. In the first study phase, they performed handscrubbing with either 2% chlorhexidine (CHG) or 10% iodopovidone (PVP-I) and, in the second phase, they performed handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability were evaluated using WHO-validated tools. Data were analyzed using the MacNemar's test within STATA.

RESULTS

A total of 33 surgeons participated to the "per protocol" population; the majority were male (94%); mean age of 35 years (SD, 8.5). On product tolerance, there was a minimal variation in redness, scaliness, fissures, and visual evaluation of the skin when handrubbing with ABHR was compared to handscrubbing with either PVP-I or CHX. Regarding acceptability, participants rated better handrubbing with ABHR than handscrubbing with PVP-I when assessing product smell (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002), color (73.3% vs 0%, p=0.001), product texture (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), skin dryness (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), ease of application (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002) and overall satisfaction (66.6% vs 6.7% p=0.011). Participants rated similarly handrubbing with ABHR and handscrubbing with CHX, except for product texture, where handrubbing rated better (71,4% vs. 0%, p=0.002). Handrubbing with ABHR was preferred by 73.3%.

CONCLUSION

Although handrubbing and handscrubbing were equally well tolerated by surgeons, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation fell into the personal preference for most of them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-8ym9yj.

Antiseptic efficacies of waterless hand rub, chlorhexidine scrub, and povidone-iodine scrub in surgical settings: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Presurgical hand washing is crucial for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and povidone-iodine (PI) products have been conventionally used as hand scrubs for presurgical hand preparation. However, waterless hand rub (WHR) products have been developed for operating room staff.

AIM

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the antiseptic efficacies of WHR, CHG, and PI in surgical settings.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases as well as the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published before October 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of the use of WHRs, CHG, or PI for presurgical hand washing were included. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Colony-forming unit (cfu) counts, SSI rates, and preference and compliance were determined to measure efficacies.

FINDINGS

Eleven RCTs involving 5135 participants were included. Residual cfu counts were significantly lower in the WHR and CHG groups than in the PI group. The differences in cfu counts between the WHR and CHG groups were non-significant. No significant differences were observed in the SSI rates between the WHR and traditional hand scrub groups. Moreover, WHRs were considered most favourable and were associated with higher compliance rates than the other products.

CONCLUSION

WHRs and CHG exhibited higher antiseptic efficacies than PI. However, additional studies with consistent outcome measurements and accurate grouping are required to obtain comprehensive results. Moreover, preference, compliance, and the cost determine the selection of hand wash products.