Influence of surgical scrubs outside the operation theatre on post-operative infections - A systematic review

Background and Aims

Healthcare workers (HCWs), which include surgeons, anaesthesiologists, nurses, technicians, and other non-medical staff working in the operation theatre (OT), change to surgical scrubs for providing designated services. This study was intended to investigate the association of moving in and out of OT to other hospital areas without changing scrubs and its impact on bacterial infection.

Methods

After PROSPERO registration, we performed a systematic review to compare the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) with or without the movement of HCWs outside OT. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library using relevant keywords. RoB-2 and ROBINS-E tools were used to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, respectively.

Results

We identified six articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria: three RCTs and three observational studies. A risk of bias assessment revealed an overall low bias in the RCTs and an overall high bias in the observational studies. The analysis revealed a comparable incidence of bacterial infection in terms of colony-forming units when scrubs when HCWs moved in and out of OT with the same scrubs. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity in participants and the OT set-up, as well as fewer studies and sample size.

Conclusion

The evidence is insufficient to suggest that wearing scrubs outside the OT could increase the incidence of SSI in surgical patients or transmit the organisms to patients, causing infection. The present review neither supports nor is against wearing surgical scrubs outside OT premises.

Comparison of the effect of isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine solution rinses on body temperature of female cats undergoing sterilization surgery

OBJECTIVES

Isopropyl alcohol 70% as a rinse agent for chlorhexidine scrub has been shown to decrease body temperature more quickly than chlorhexidine solution in mice prepared aseptically prior to surgery. For this reason, some high-quality, high-volume (HQHV) surgical sterilization clinics use chlorhexidine solution rather than alcohol. We sought to determine if temperature upon entry to recovery, heat loss per kg and rate of temperature decline during surgery were different between cats rinsed with chlorhexidine solution vs 70% isopropyl alcohol following surgical scrub, and if there were significant predictors of recovery temperature.

METHODS

Female cats admitted for surgery to trap-neuter-return (TNR) clinics at a veterinary college were assigned chlorhexidine solution or alcohol rinse agents via block randomization. Veterinary students and veterinarians performed spay surgeries using HQHV techniques. In recovery, heat support and reversal agents were available for cats with a low body temperature or that were slow to recover. Baseline values, outcome variables and duration of each stage (preparation, surgery, recovery) were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and t-tests. Recovery temperature was evaluated using random effects multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

The recovery temperature, heat loss per kg, heat loss per min, need for reversal and need for heat support in recovery were not significantly different between rinse groups. Weight <2.3 kg, body condition score <4, duration of surgery and postinduction temperature were predictors of recovery temperature. The rate of heat loss in the first 30 mins of surgery was slightly lower for cats in the alcohol rinse group and the recovery duration was shorter for cats weighing less <2.3 kg in the alcohol rinse group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There were no clinically meaningful differences in body temperature between chlorhexidine and alcohol rinses. Both chlorhexidine solution and isopropyl alcohol 70% are appropriate rinse agents for aseptic preparation of feline spay surgeries.

Operating Room Hand Preparation: To Scrub or to Rub?

BACKGROUND

The alcohol rub has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional surgical scrub in preparing the hands for surgical procedures. Few reviews have examined critically the evidence that favors or discredits the use of the alcohol rub instead of the traditional scrub.

METHODS

A review of available published literature was undertaken to define the evidence for the best methods for hand preparation before surgical procedures. The focus of this literature review was to compare the bacteriologic and clinical outcomes of conventional surgical scrubbing of the hands compared with alcohol rubs.

RESULTS

The bacteriologic studies of the hands after the conventional scrub versus the alcohol rub demonstrated consistently comparable or superior reductions in bacterial presence on the hand with the alcohol rub. Only four clinical studies were identified that compared the scrub versus the rub in the frequency of surgical site infections. No difference in surgical site infections were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The alcohol rub appears to have comparable results to the surgical scrub and is a reasonable alternative in preparation of the hands for surgical procedures.

Performance of Bio-Occlusive Dressing as Barrier Protection from Presurgical Chlorhexidine Skin Preparation

Purpose/Aim of the study: Chlorhexdine has been shown to provide excellent and cost-effective presurgical antisepsis. However, standard presurgical concentrations of chlorhexidine (2-4%) are known to cause ocular injury, even in cases in which a bio-occlusive dressing (Tegaderm™) was applied beforehand to the closed eye.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three experiments were conducted to assess the barrier performance of Tegaderm™ to chlorhexidine skin prep in vitro and on non-ocular skin. The experiments used water as a control group.

RESULTS

In the first in vitro experiment, the chlorhexidine group showed penetration at the edges of the Tegaderm™ at 5 minutes while the water (control) group never penetrated the Tegaderm™. A subsequent experiment testing the central permeability of the tegaderm showed it to be impermeable to both chlorhexidine and water after 90 minutes. In the in vivo experiment, the chlorhexidine group showed penetration at 10 minutes, while the water (control) group never penetrated the Tegaderm™.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest Tegaderm™ is permeable at the edges to chlorhexidine but not water. Based on this, along with reports of ocular injury from chlorhexidine skin preparation of the head despite prior application of Tegaderm™ over the eyes, we advise against using bio-occlusive adhesive dressing to protect the ocular surface from chlorhexidine exposure. We suggest an alternative presurgical antiseptic agent such as povidone-iodine be employed whenever possible.

Preoperative Hand Decontamination in Ophthalmic Surgery: A Comparison of the Removal of Bacteria from Surgeons' Hands by Routine Antimicrobial Scrub versus an Alcoholic Hand Rub

PURPOSE

The goal of this experiment was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of routine preoperative hand washing using commercial medicated sponge brushes versus an alcoholic hand rub, by comparing bacterial growth on ophthalmic surgeons' hands after application of each of these methods.

METHODS

Twenty ophthalmic surgeons were recruited at the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel. Samples were collected twice from the hands of each surgeon after hand decontamination using two different protocols during routine surgical practice. The routine preparation consisted of a 3-minute surgical scrub using commercial brush-sponges incorporating either 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) or 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) formulations with detergent, followed by drying the hands with a sterile towel, while the 70% ethanol solution was applied for 60-seconds and allowed to air dry. Half of the group was randomly assigned to provide samples first after the routine method and the alcoholic solution a week later, and the other half of the group was sampled in the reverse order. Viable counts of bacteria were evaluated using a modified glove juice method. Bacterial colonies were enumerated after incubation for 24 hours and expressed as colony forming units (CFU)/mL for each pair of hands.

RESULTS

Geometric mean counts were 1310 and 39 CFU/mL, in the routine and alcohol rub groups, respectively, representing a mean log₁₀ reduction in 1.53. The difference between the paired bacterial counts for the routine versus the alcohol rub was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between log₁₀ reductions for CHG and PVP-I (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that an alcohol rub protocol is more effective in reducing bacterial counts on hands than routine surgical hand preparation with PVP-I and CHG in a population of practicing ophthalmic surgeons in the operative clinical setting. Thus, it provides a safe alternative as a preoperative hand disinfection method.

Are we following the WHO recommendations for surgical scrubbing?

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections have an incidence as high as 10%. To reduce this, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends guidelines for surgical scrubbing.

AIMS

We assessed adherence of surgical staff scrub practice before gowning to current WHO recommendations.

METHODS

A prospective study conducted in operation theatres in a university hospital. Participants comprised of consultant surgeons, trainees and scrub nurses. Variables included staff grade, scrub order, length of scrub time and appropriate dress code. Data were collected anonymously and analysed.

RESULTS

We assessed 303 surgical scrub-episodes (95 scrub nurses, 123 trainees and 85 consultant surgeons). Mean time for first scrub of the day was 239 s, SD = 99, 95% CI 218, 259 and range = 530 (scrub nurses = 297 s, trainees = 204 s, consultant surgeons = 202 s). Mean time for subsequent scrubs was 161 s, SD = 63, 95% CI 152, 170, range = 312 (scrub nurses = 184 s, trainees = 158 s, consultant surgeons = 143 s). Statistical significance was found between staff grades based on scrub time, with WHO breaches in remaining variables.

CONCLUSIONS

No written local guidelines on hand scrubbing exist in the hospital and staff were unaware of WHO guidelines. In this study, mean scrub times were less than WHO guidelines with significant variation in practice across grades of staff. Clear written guidelines are needed.