Search

Key Points: Question: Is preoperative skin antisepsis with povidone iodine in alcohol noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol to prevent surgical site infections after cardiac or abdominal surgery? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial that included 3360 patients, surgical site infections after cardiac or abdominal surgery were identified in 80 patients (5.1%) in the povidone iodine group vs 97 (5.5%) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group, a difference of 0.4% that met the predefined noninferiority margin of an absolute difference of 2.5%. Meaning: Povidone iodine was noninferior compared with chlorhexidine gluconate as preoperative skin antisepsis in preventing surgical site infections after cardiac or abdominal surgery. Importance: Preoperative skin antisepsis is an established procedure to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). The choice of antiseptic agent, povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, remains debated. Objective: To determine whether povidone iodine in alcohol is noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol to prevent SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, cluster-randomized, investigator-masked, crossover, noninferiority trial; 4403 patients undergoing cardiac or abdominal surgery in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland between September 2018 and March 2020 were assessed and 3360 patients were enrolled (cardiac, n = 2187 [65%]; abdominal, n = 1173 [35%]). The last follow-up was on July 1, 2020. Interventions: Over 18 consecutive months, study sites were randomly assigned each month to either use povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, each formulated in alcohol. Disinfectants and skin application processes were standardized and followed published protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after abdominal surgery and within 1 year after cardiac surgery, using definitions from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. A noninferiority margin of 2.5% was used. Secondary outcomes included SSIs stratified by depth of infection and type of surgery. Results: A total of 1598 patients (26 cluster periods) were randomly assigned to receive povidone iodine vs 1762 patients (26 cluster periods) to chlorhexidine gluconate. Mean (SD) age of patients was 65.0 years (39.0-79.0) in the povidone iodine group and 65.0 years (41.0-78.0) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group. Patients were 32.7% and 33.9% female in the povidone iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate groups, respectively. SSIs were identified in 80 patients (5.1%) in the povidone iodine group vs 97 (5.5%) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group, a difference of 0.4% (95% CI, −1.1% to 2.0%) with the lower limit of the CI not exceeding the predefined noninferiority margin of −2.5%; results were similar when corrected for clustering. The unadjusted relative risk for povidone iodine vs chlorhexidine gluconate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.69-1.23). Nonsignificant differences were observed following stratification by type of surgical procedure. In cardiac surgery, SSIs were present in 4.2% of patients with povidone iodine vs 3.3% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.82-1.94]); in abdominal surgery, SSIs were present in 6.8% with povidone iodine vs 9.9% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.46-1.02]). Conclusions and Relevance: Povidone iodine in alcohol as preoperative skin antisepsis was noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol in preventing SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03685604 This multicenter, cluster-randomized, noninferiority trial investigates the effectiveness of povidone iodine vs chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol as preoperative skin antisepsis in preventing surgical site infections in adults undergoing abdominal or cardiac surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the important problems that lower the diagnostic value of blood culture is contamination with skin organisms. The povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol are used for disinfection prior to blood sampling for culture. The investigator-initiated, open label, single centre, randomised trial compared blood culture contamination rates between two groups of patients in which using a povidone iodine skin-preparation process with the contamination rate for using "2 % chlorhexidine with 70 % isopropyl alcohol" skin-disinfection. The patients who required sampling for blood cultures were included in the study and study period was from 15 March 2023 to 15 July 2023. A total of 400 blood cultures were obtained during the study, including 133 in the study group and 267 in the control group. In the total blood cultures, 11.75 % (n = 47) had microorganism isolation. Among them 39 (9.75 %) were contaminants and 8 (2 %) of them were true pathogens. The contaminant microorganisms were as following; 34 coagulase-negative Staphylococci, 3 Micrococcus spp , and 2 Streptococci viridans. The blood culture contamination rate in the study group was 5.3 % (n = 7) and 12.0 % (n = 32) in the control group, and significantly lower in the study group (p = 0.033). There is no significant difference regarding skin related side effects between two groups. This study, showed that 2 % chlorhexidine gluconate in 70 % isopropyl alcohol is more efficacious in children than 10 % povidone-iodine preparations for disinfecting the skin prior to blood specimen collection for prevention of blood culture contamination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a study on the use of syringe pressure irrigation with and without povidone iodine in preventing surgical site infections (SSI). SSI is a common complication of surgery that can have negative impacts on patients. The study found that pressure irrigation may be more effective in preventing SSI compared to surgical incision irrigation. However, the differences between the two methods were not statistically significant. Other studies have also shown that alternative methods, such as using clean gloves and tap water, can be just as effective in preventing infection. The findings suggest that syringe pressure irrigation with normal saline alone is a cost-effective alternative to using povidone iodine. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the challenges of achieving effective antisepsis in orthognathic surgery due to high bacterial concentrations in the oral and nasal cavities. Topics discussed include the prevalence of surgical site infections in orthognathic surgery, various strategies for local antiseptic preparation, and opportunities for innovation to reduce infectious complications.

Background The application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents. Methods A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t -test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results The null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t -test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection. Conclusion Based on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There remains debate as to the ideal skin preparation agent to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) after clean implant surgery. This study is a subgroup analysis of all patients undergoing implant surgery in the NEWSkin prep trial. Patients and Methods: The NEWSkin prep trial is a randomized clinical trial (RCT; n = 3300) comparing the three antiseptic skin preparation agents commonly used prior to incisional surgery: chlorhexidine with alcohol (C-Alc), povidone iodine with alcohol (PI-Alc), and aqueous povidone iodine (PI-Aq). All participants who underwent clean incisional surgeries with implants from this trial were selected for analysis. The primary outcome was SSI rate; secondary outcomes were complication rates and re-admission rates. Results: A total of 712 patients in the NEWSkinPrep study underwent clean implant surgery between January 2015 and December 2018. Randomization resulted in the following distribution: C-Alc, 238; PI-Alc, 243; and PI-Aq, 231. Median age of participants was 63 years and 41% were female. Surgical site infection rates were: C-Alc, 10.13%; PI-Alc,11.52%; and PI-Aq, 11.26%. Povidone iodine with alcohol did not appear to be non-inferior to C-Alc (mean difference, 1.39%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.17 to 6.95) and PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq (mean difference, 0.27%; 95% CI, −5.45 to 5.99; p = 0.9271). There were no differences seen in secondary outcomes between groups. Conclusions: These results indicate a similarity between PI-Alc and C-Alc and that PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq. Because this study was not powered to assess these differences in clean cases with implants, additional studies are needed to assess these agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to implement successful and widespread administration of PVP-I prophylactic measures in clinical settings, patients must be willing to undergo the treatment. Our study surveys patients regarding their subjective experience and ability to tolerate the nasal and/or oral application of PVP-I. METHODS Ethical considerations This study was approved by the University's Institutional Review Board. Keywords: bacteriology; dental; endoscopy; epidemiology; infectious conditions; public health EN bacteriology dental endoscopy epidemiology infectious conditions public health 696 699 4 06/14/23 20230701 NES 230701 Key Points 0.5% povidone-iodine dilution is well tolerated within the nasal cavity for single use prior to in-office procedures. DISCUSSION PVP-I has proven in vitro antiseptic properties against a variety of bacterial and viral pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2 with in vivo studies ongoing. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Postoperative endophthalmitis is typically caused by the patient's conjunctival bacterial flora. Povidone iodine solution (5%) is used perioperatively to obtain periocular and ocular antisepsis. However, an adjunctive prophylaxis procedure could further help control the conjunctival microbial load. Considering the increase in antibiotic resistance, a progressive shift toward alternative methods would be desirable. Somilux® eye drops (Alfa Intes, lactoferrin-based eye drops) are medical devices containing liposomal lactoferrin (LF). This study evaluates the effects on conjunctival microflora of LF-based eye drops used in the preoperative phase in patients scheduled for cataract surgery. Methods: LF-based eye drops or a vehicle solution (water solution) were instilled 4 times a day starting 3 days before cataract surgery. Before the therapy (T0) and at the time of surgery (T1), a conjunctival swab was performed in both eyes and processed to detect microbial growth, microbiological isolation, and species identification. The outcome was the quantification and characterization of the local microbial flora before and after using LF-based or vehicle-based eye drops. Safety of the treatments was also evaluated. Results: 88 eyes of 44 patients (mean [± SD] age 75 [± 12.6] years) were enrolled. At baseline, 54 conjunctival swabs showed only saprophytic flora, 27 showed only potential pathogenic flora, and seven showed both of them. LF-based eye drops reduced the proportion of potentially pathogenic bacteria (36% at T0 vs. 9% at T1, p = 0.008) compared with the vehicle (41% at T0 vs. 55% at T1, p = 0.302) without altering the physiological ocular microbial composition. No adverse events have been reported. Conclusion: Our findings provide a novel contribution to the scientific knowledge on the role of LF in the ophthalmic field, supporting the use of LF-based eye drops as a safe and selective treatment to improve the ocular surface physiological defenses and control the bacterial ocular surface contamination prior to cataract surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Antiseptics have been used for many years in human and veterinary medicine. Over the years, the lengthening of surgical procedures in human surgery and the increasingly frequent use of inert material has increased the risk of infections. This was why skin antisepsis has become very important in the prevention of infections of the surgical wound and resulting complications. In Mali, at the Gabriel Touré University Hospital, the most prescribed family of antiseptics was the halogenated ones, in particular 10% povidone iodine for wound and surgical site antisepsis. This study was aimed to control the quality of 10% povidone iodine used in the hospital. Methodology: We conducted at the Medicines Quality Control Service of the National Health Laboratory of Mali (LNS) a retrospective analytical study on the quality control of 10% povidone iodine. We obtained 10% povidone iodine samples from the Pharmacie Populaire du Mali (PPM). We analyzed 48 batches of samples in regards of visual inspection, average volume, titrimetry, colorimetric test and pH control. Results: All 48 analyzed batches were compliant, i.e. contained the active ingredient and could be used in health facilities or at home as an antiseptic. Conclusion: All analyzed batches of 10% povidone iodine samples did not show any cases of inconsistency and therefore could be used in the management of wound dressings. Future Direction: Use other analytical methods like HPLC to test the quality control of povidone and other types of antiseptics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rising trends of cesarean section globally demand identification of most suitable pre-operative antiseptic agent to minimize surgical site infections (SSI) and its consequences. Aims and Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine, compare, and analyze SSI developing following the use of chlorhexidine (2.5%)–alcohol and povidone-iodine (10%) alcohol as pre-operative antiseptic agents in cesarean section. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational, and analytical study was conducted in a tertiary care center for 1 year, where 300 women receiving pre-cesarean surgical site antisepsis with chlorhexidine (2.5%)–alcohol were compared with another 300 receiving povidone-iodine (10%) alcohol. Results: The two study groups were compared in terms of various sociodemographic and clinical parameters which might act as confounding factors and were found to be similar. As compared to women receiving povidone-iodine (10%) alcohol, women receiving chlorhexidine (2.5%)–alcohol had significantly lesser incidence of overall (P<0.001), superficial (P<0.001), and deep (P<0.05) SSI, infections developing at 48 h–5 days (P<0.001) and at 5 days–30 days (P<0.05). There was no significant difference among the two groups with respect to wound swab culture reports and post-SSI inflammatory markers. As compared to the povidone-iodine group, in the chlorhexidine group, a significantly (P<0.05) greater percentage healed with meager dressing and a significantly (P<0.05) lesser percentage required secondary suturing and readmissions and had a significantly (P<0.05) lesser mean duration of hospital stay. Conclusion: Chlorhexidine (2.5%)–alcohol appears to be a better pre-operative surgical site anti-septic agent than povidone-iodine (10%) alcohol in cesarean section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis is frequently recommended for most surgical procedures; however, it is unclear if these recommendations should apply to surgery involving traumatic contaminated wounds where povidone-iodine has previously been preferred. We aimed to compare the effect of aqueous 10% povidone-iodine versus aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate on the risk of surgical site infection in patients who required surgery for an open fracture.Methods: We conducted a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial (Aqueous-PREP) at 14 hospitals in Canada, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with an open extremity fracture treated with a surgical fixation implant. For inclusion, the open fracture required formal surgical debridement within 72 h of the injury. Participating sites were randomly assigned (1:1) to use either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate immediately before surgical incision; sites then alternated between the study interventions every 2 months. Participants, health-care providers, and study personnel were aware of the treatment assignment due to the colour of the solutions. The outcome adjudicators and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was surgical site infection, guided by the 2017 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ space infection within 90 days of surgery. The primary analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle and included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03385304.Findings: Between April 8, 2018, and June 8, 2021, 3619 patients were assessed for eligibility and 1683 were enrolled and randomly assigned to povidone-iodine (n=847) or chlorhexidine gluconate (n=836). The trial's adjudication committee determined that 45 participants were ineligible, leaving 1638 participants in the primary analysis, with 828 in the povidone-iodine group and 810 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean age 44·9 years [SD 18·0]; 629 [38%] were female and 1009 [62%] were male). Among 1571 participants in whom the primary outcome was known, a surgical site infection occurred in 59 (7%) of 787 participants in the povidone-iodine group and 58 (7%) of 784 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (odds ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·74 to 1·65; p=0·61; risk difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·4 to 3·4).Interpretation: For patients who require surgical fixation of an open fracture, either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate can be selected for skin antisepsis on the basis of solution availability, patient contraindications, or product cost. These findings might also have implications for antisepsis of other traumatic wounds.Funding: US Department of Defense, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University Surgical Associates, PSI Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. Patients with invasive medical devices are at high risk for infection. Skin colonization is the initial stage of these infections, leading to the recommendation of practices requiring disinfection using antiseptics. Microbial communities playing a major role in skin health could be impacted by antiseptic procedures. Aim. To characterize and compare the bacterial communities of skin samples from patients before an antisepsis procedure, and after removal of the medical device itself, according to the nature of the antiseptic molecule (povidone iodine or chlorhexidine). Methods. The study focused on alterations in bacterial communities depending on the nature of the antiseptic procedure and type of intravascular device. After amplification of 16S rDNA, libraries (n = 498 samples) were sequenced using MiSeq platform. Results. Using an in-house pipeline (QIIME2 modules), while no alteration in skin microbiota diversity was associated with antiseptic procedure or PVC type, according to culture results (p < 0.05), alterations were at times associated with restricted diversity and higher dissimilarity (p < 0.05). Antiseptic procedures and PVC types were associated with the modification of specific bacterial representations with modulation of the Bacillota/Bacteroidota (Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes) ratio (modulation of C. acnes, Prevotella, Lagierella, and Actinomyces spp.) (p < 0.05). At baseline, the microbiota shows certain bacteria that are significantly associated with future PVC colonization and/or bacteremia (p < 0.05). All of these modulations were associated with altered expression of metabolic pathways (p < 0.05). Discussion. Finally, this work highlights the need to optimize the management of patients requiring intravascular devices, possibly by modulating the skin microbiota. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: WHO and the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing meta-analyses that include studies at high risk of bias, combined with the recent publication of large, randomised trials, justify an updated meta-analysis of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to test the rates of SSI according to skin preparation solutions (ie, alcoholic chlorhexidine vs aqueous povidone-iodine) and types of sutures (ie, coated vs uncoated).Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library databases, with no language restrictions, to identify high-quality RCTs testing either alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation (vs aqueous povidone-iodine) or triclosan-coated sutures (vs uncoated sutures), or both, published from database inception to Sept 1, 2021. Patients who received clean-contaminated, contaminated, or dirty surgery were included. We predefined the characteristics of a high-quality trial through an expert consensus process to develop an enhanced Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool specifically for RCTs with a primary outcome of SSI. Data were extracted from published reports. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021267220.Findings: Of 942 studies identified, 933 were excluded. Four high-quality RCTs (n=7467 patients) were included that tested alcoholic chlorhexidine. No significant difference in SSI rates was noted between alcoholic chlorhexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine (17·9% [667 of 3723 patients] vs 19·8% [740 of 3744 patients]; odds ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·06]; p=0·21, I2=53·1%). Five high-quality RCTs were included that tested triclosan-coated sutures (n=8619 patients), with no significant difference noted between triclosan-coated and uncoated sutures (16·8% [733 of 4360 patients] vs 18·4% [784 of 4259 patients]; OR 0·90 [95% CI 0·74-1·09]; p=0·29, I2=36·4%).Interpretation: Contrary to previous meta-analyses, this study did not show a benefit from either alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation or triclosan-coated sutures, both of which are more expensive than other readily available alternatives. Global and national guidance should be reconsidered to remove recommendations for their routine use.Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

N-chlorotaurine (NCT), the N-chloro derivative of the amino acid taurine, is a long-lived oxidant produced by stimulated human leucocytes. NCT has antimicrobial activities which are generally enhanced in the presence of organic material. The aim of this study was to investigate fungicidal effects of NCT and conventional antiseptics against Candida isolated from vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC). Chlorhexidine (CHX, 1.6%), octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT, 0.08%), povidone iodine (PVP-I, 8%), boric acid (8%), and NCT (0.1% (5.5 mM)) were evaluated against forty-four Candida isolates, according to European Standard methods, at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min and 24 h in the presence of skim milk as an organic material. CHX, OCT, and PVP-I showed rapid fungicidal activity against all Candida isolates with 5–6 log10 reduction of viable counts after 30 min, whereas boric acid and NCT needed 1 h against Candida albicans and 2 h against non-albicans Candida for a significant 3 log10 reduction. NCT showed fungicidal activity (defined as ≥4 log10 reduction) against C. albicans within 90 min and C. non–albicans within 24 h. Based upon all presently available data, including our results, NCT could be used as a new agent for treatment of local fungal infections such as VVC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the global surgery implications of a study which compared the efficacy of skin antiseptics povidone iodine in alcohol and chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol in preventing surgical site infections after cardiac or abdominal surgery. It calls for a change in the World Health Organization's (WHO) World Surgical Safety Checklist and suggests future research in low- and middle-income countries to consider the current study as an evidence-based guide.

It is an established fact now that the normal skin of healthy human beings harbors a rich bacterial flora. Normally considered non-pathogenic, these organisms may be a potential source of infection of the surgical wound. Postoperative SSIs remain a major source of illness and a less frequent cause of death in the surgical patient. Such infections lengthen bed stay and results in higher costs. Patients who are undergoing clean and clean contaminated elective surgeries are taken up for the study and divided into two Groups, one group 2% Chlorhexidine Alcohol and other group 10% Povidone iodine is used and seen for infections developed in Post-Operative period. The results of the study showed that when compared to10% povidone iodine and 2%chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol solution, the rate of postoperative wound infections are reduced significantly. Pre-operative skin preparation with 2%chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% alcohol is an ideal antiseptic which has a broader antimicrobial spectrum and rate of post-operative wound infections, length of hospital stay is much lower as compared to 10%povidone iodine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Surgical site infections (SSIs) occur after an operative procedure and can range from superficial to deep wound infections. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have proposed guidelines recommending measures to prevent SSIs. Intraoperative measures are largely focused on decontamination of the skin and intraoperative wound irrigation using soap and antiseptics and are simple, efficient, and cost-effective measures to reduce SSIs. Povidone-iodine (PVI) is a topical antiseptic widely used for the reduction of SSIs. Aim: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of preoperative or intraoperative use of PVI from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Material and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE and Central databases for RCTs that involved PVI application versus saline or no treatment control groups across various surgical categories. The primary outcome was SSI or post-operative wound infections. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: A total of 59 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with information from 20,497 patients. A reduction in overall SSI incidence was found (RR = 0.70, 0.60–0.80, p = 0.0002, I² = 44%). Subgroup analyses showed that the comparator treatment and type of procedure did not modify the effect of PVI on SSI incidence. However, inconsistent results on SSI incidence were obtained when the data were stratified by PVI application method and surgery category. Conclusions: The results of the meta-analysis provide support for the preoperative or intraoperative use of PVI in decreasing the incidence of SSI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of povidone iodine and chlorhexidine irrigation in preventing dry socket postoperatively after mandibular third molar surgery. Materials and methods: This study was performed on 150 patients requiring surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars under local anesthesia. The study participants were divided into two groups of 75 patients each. For patients in group I the surgical site was irrigated using 1% povidone iodine and in group II the surgical site was irrigated using 0.2% chlorhexidine for 7 days. Pain, swelling, trismus, dry socket and food accumulation was assessed on the 2nd and 7th post-operative days. Results: Group I patients had less pain and improved mouth opening on 2nd and 7th postoperative days when compared to group II (P < 0.05). There was a statistically insignificant result while assessing swelling for patients in group I. Among 75 patients of group I, 3 patients presented with food accumulation and 2 patients developed dry socket. Among 75 patients of group II, 9 patients presented with food accumulation and 13 patients developed dry socket. Conclusion: It was concluded that povidone iodine irrigation was more efficacious in reducing pain, swelling and trismus, accumulation of food was also less and the incidence of dry socket significantly low when compared to chlorhexidine irrigation. Clinical significance: Controversies exist in the selection of mouth wash to prevent the occurrence of dry socket after mandibular third molar removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Povidone-iodine (PVI) is a universally accepted antiseptic agent used in ophthalmic surgery. Insufficient antisepsis in patients with self-reported allergies to iodine has led to devastating complications. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence for alternatives to PVI in ocular surgery. Aqueous chlorhexidine has been used as a primary antiseptic agent in Sweden for several years and has proven efficiency and safety; in a study of a large series of intravitreal injections in Australia, the endophthalmitis rates were similar to those after the use of PVI. The evidence related to using other disinfectants such as picloxydine, hypochlorous acid solution, and polyhexanide is scarce. Single studies have shown lower patient discomfort after conjunctival lavage with chlorhexidine or hypochlorous acid than with PVI. No evidence was found to suggest changing from PVI to other antiseptic agents. Disinfectant solutions other than PVI or chlorhexidine will require further investigations to show their utility in ocular surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Absorption of iodine through skin and an increased incidence of thyroid disorders due to iodophor exposure are reported. However, the risk of oral transmucosal absorption of povidone-iodine after intraoral preparation is not clear. Objective: To investigate the possibility of oral transmucosal absorption of povidone-iodine after intraoral preparation and its effect on thyroxine level in blood. Patients and methods: A randomized controlled study was carried out in the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Twenty- to 40-year-old healthy male adults planning to receive oral surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled. The study group received povidone-iodine irrigation of oral cavity for 3 min as intraoral preparation before operation. The control group received chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation of oral cavity for 3 min as intraoral preparation before operation. Iodine levels in blood and urine, and thyroxine levels in blood were tested and compared, before and after operation. Result(s): In total, 24 patients were included and analyzed finally. We found that after intraoral preparation with povidone-iodine, serum iodine level increased significantly to 2–3 times the pre-operation level in 15–30 min, and the urinary iodine level increased to 5 times the pre-operation level on the first day after operation. Iodine levels in blood and urine decreased significantly on the third day after operation but still significantly greater than the pre-operation levels. However, thyroxine levels were not altered accordingly. Conclusion(s): Oral transmucosal absorption of iodine is observed when povidone-iodine is used for intraoral preparation in healthy male adults, though the free thyroxine in blood is not affected accordingly. Clinical relevance: Povidone-iodine is commonly used as an antiseptic in oral surgery and dental clinics. Based on our findings that iodine levels in blood and urine may elevate significantly after intraoral preparation with povidone-iodine prior to oral surgeries, care must be taken for individuals when excess iodine intakes can endanger the safety of the patient. Registration information: Name of the trial registry: The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/). Registration number: ChiCTR2100042028 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a primary contributor to surgical morbidity and mortality, causing a substantial financial burden on the healthcare system. Specifically, Cutibacterium acnes contributes greatly to infections in the shoulder and spine regions. Prevention of infection is crucial to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. This article reviews current surgical skin preparation solutions, the unique distribution of organisms at common orthopedic surgical sites, and recommends solutions based on surgical location. Methods: A search of electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase) was conducted for relevant literature until December 2020. Sources were compiled based on title and abstract, then full texts were read for possible inclusion. This review summarizes the most recent publications in the field of SSIs and preparation solutions. Results: The mechanism and efficacy of alcohol-, iodine-, and chlorhexidine-based preparations were reviewed, along with experimental preparations. This article identifies common colonization patterns for the shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, spine, foot, and ankle, and discusses recommendations for preparations based on current evidence. Recommendations: For shoulder and elbow operations, we recommend ChloraPrep™ (CareFusion, BD, El Paso, TX), DuraPrep™ (3M Health Care, St. Paul, MN), or Betadine® applied with 4 × 4 gauze sponge, three-day pre-operative benzyl peroxide, and application of 3% hydrogen peroxide before skin preparation. For the hip and knee, we recommend application of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) cloth the night before and morning of surgery and either DuraPrep or iodine-alcohol skin prep prior to surgery. For spine surgeries, we recommended ChloraPrep. For foot and ankle, our recommendations are: ChloraPrep or DuraPrep, submersion of foot in 70% ethanol/10% isopropyl alcohol for five minutes prior to procedure, application with a bristled brush, and a second vigorous scrub with 4 × 4 soaked gauze. Conclusions: The current surgical skin preparations have both benefits and drawbacks. We recommend that orthopedic surgeons choose a skin preparation based on surgical site and prevalence of unique skin flora there. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postoperative surgical site infection still constitutes a major concern in spinal surgery and related with poor outcome. We aimed to investigate the effect of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) on skin colonization in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) surgery. Adult patients scheduled for LDH surgery were included in the study. Three skin swab cultures were taken when lying on the operating table (culture 1), after PVP-I application (culture 2), and at the end of the operation (culture 3). The effect of PVP-I and other independent predictors on skin culture was analyzed. A total of 62 [28 (45%) female, mean age 47±13 years] patients were included. Only male sex and taking shower before the surgery have been found to be independent factors for affecting culture 1 growth while adjusted to age, body ma ss index, smoking, preoperative hospital stay, and surgery site shaving [OR (95% CI): 7.8 (1.4-41.9), p=0.016; OR (95% CI): 0.34 (0.003-0.35), p=0.005]. After PVP-I, the growth frequency of culture 2 decreased significantly compared to culture 1 [8 (13%) vs. 43 (70%), p<0.001]. However, culture 3 positivity rate was similar to culture 2 (p=0.219). In preoperative sterilization of lumbar disc surgery, PVP-I significantly reduces skin colonization both immediately after application and at the end of the operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the surgical suture, the implanted thread can be a source of microbial contamination. Implanted materials are frequently described as being substrates prone for biofilm development provoking surgical site infections. Treatment of postsurgical wounds with different topical antimicrobial agents is a current practice applied to every patient. However, to date, there is little evidence on the efficacy of different antiseptic treatments on suture materials in preventing environmental or skin bacterial adhesion and further infection. Here, the authors compared the ability of an aerosol formulation of silver sulfadiazine, vitamin A, and lidocaine (AF-SSD) and of two of the most frequently used topical treatments, povidone-iodine and ethanol, in eradicating or controlling the microbial contamination of suture threads in patients who have undergone clean surgeries. Postsurgical suture threads treated with AF-SSD showed a significantly reduced proportion of contaminated samples containing viable microbial cells compared with those treated with povidone-iodine or ethanol. Furthermore, those samples that were positive for bacterial growth showed a lesser number of viable cells in AF-SSD-treated sutures than those treated with povidone-iodine or ethanol. Confocal laser scanning microscopy showed that AF-SSD-treated postsurgical sutures presented significantly less attached microbial cells than povidone-iodine and ethanol, with scarce observable microbial cells on the surface of the suture. Taken together, the results suggest that treatment with AF-SSD is more effective than the other two antiseptics, and there is a potential for improvement in reducing the microbial burden of implanted materials such as the suture thread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine as preoperative antiseptic skin preparation for prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) after cesarean delivery (CD).Materials and Methods: A total of 311 eligible women who underwent CS were recruited in the study after fulfilling all the eligibility and exclusion criteria. Patients were randomized into two groups (153 in chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 158 in povidone-iodine group) by a computer-generated randomization table. Patients were followed for a period of 30 days in postoperative period to monitor for SSI.Results: The rate of SSI in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group is 5.4% and that of the povidone-iodine group is 8.6%. E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and Acinetobacter baumannii were the most common organisms isolated. E. coli was found in 9.5% of the total SSI cases.Conclusions: The study found that the patients who received chlorhexidine-alcohol as skin antiseptic had less chance of developing SSI than those who received povidone-iodine; however, it did not reach a statistical significance.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India CTRI/2018/05/014294 . Registered on May 31, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two billion peripheral venous catheters are sold globally each year, but the optimal skin disinfection and types of devices are not well established. We aimed to show the superiority of disinfection with 2% chlorhexidine plus alcohol over 5% povidone iodine plus alcohol in preventing infectious complications, and of closed integrated catheters, positive displacement needleless-connectors, disinfecting caps, and single-use prefilled flush syringes used in combination (innovation group) over open catheters and three-way stopcocks for treatment administration (standard group) in preventing catheter failure.Methods: We did an open-label, randomised-controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design, for which we enrolled adults (age ≥18 years) visiting the emergency department at the Poitiers University Hospital, France, and requiring one peripheral venous catheter before admission to the medical wards. Before catheter insertion, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based random-number generator to one of four treatment groups based on skin preparation and type of devices (innovative devices or standard devices; 2% chlorhexidine plus alcohol or 5% povidone iodine plus alcohol). Primary outcomes were the incidence of infectious complications (local infection, catheter colonisation, or bloodstream infections) and time between catheter insertion and catheter failure (occlusion, dislodgment, infiltration, phlebitis, or infection). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03757143.Findings: 1000 patients were recruited between Jan 7, and Sept 6, 2019, of whom 500 were assigned to the chlorhexidine plus alcohol group and 500 to the povidone iodine plus alcohol group (250 with innovative solutions and 250 with standard devices in each antiseptic group). No significant interaction was found between the two study interventions. Local infections occurred less frequently with chlorhexidine plus alcohol than with povidone iodine plus alcohol (0 [0%] of 496 patients vs six [1%] of 493 patients) and the same was observed for catheter colonisation (4/431 [1%] vs 70/415 [17%] catheters among the catheters cultured; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 0·08 [95% CI 0·02-0·18]). Median time between catheter insertion and catheter failure was longer in the innovation group compared with the standard group (50·4 [IQR 29·6-69·4] h vs 30·0 [16·6-52·6] h; p=0·0017). Minor skin reactions occurred in nine (2%) patients in the chlorhexidine plus alcohol group and seven (1%) patients in the povidone iodine plus alcohol group.Interpretation: For skin antisepsis, chlorhexidine plus alcohol provides greater protection of peripheral venous catheter-related infectious complications than does povidone iodine plus alcohol. Use of innovative devices extends the catheter complication-free dwell time.Funding: Becton Dickinson. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cutibacterium acnes is part of the anaerobic skin microbiome and resides in deeper skin layers. The organism is an agent of surgical site infections (SSI) in shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that prolonged skin preparation with an agent that penetrates deeply into the skin would be beneficial. Thus, we compared two classes of antiseptics, each combined with alcohol, each applied with two different contact times. Methods: Using a cross-over arrangement, shoulders of 16 healthy volunteers were treated for 2.5 min (standard) or 30 min (prolonged) with alcohol-based chlorhexidine (CHG-ALC) or alcohol-based povidone-iodine (PVP-I-ALC). Skin sites were sampled before, immediately after, and 3 h after treatment, using a standardized cup-scrub technique. Results: Aerobic skin flora was reduced more effectively by PVP-I-ALC than by CHG-ALC after 2.5 min application and immediate sampling (reduction factor [RF] 2.55 ± 0.75 vs. 1.94 ± 0.91, p = 0.04), but not after prolonged contact times and 3-h sampling. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were completely eliminated after PVP-I-ALC application, but still recovered from 4 of 32 samples after CHG-ALC application. Anaerobic flora was reduced more effectively by PVP-I-ALC than CHG-ALC after standard (RF 3.96 ± 1.46 vs. 1.74 ± 1.24, p < 0.01) and prolonged (RF 3.14 ± 1.20 vs. 1.38 ± 1.16, p < 0.01) contact times and immediate sampling, but not after 3-h sampling. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: PVP-I-ALC showed marginal benefits concerning the aerobic flora, but more substantial benefits over CHG-ALC concerning the anaerobic flora of the shoulder. Standard and prolonged contact times showed superiority for PVP-I-ALC for anaerobic flora at all immediate sampling points, but missed significance at 3-h sampling. The results underscore the need for protection against C. acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci in orthopaedic surgery. The clinical relevance of these findings, however, should be studied with SSI as an endpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common problem after surgery. Although several guidelines have indicated the efficacy of antiseptics, such as chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine, in reducing SSI rate, the optimal recommendation is still not established. Olanexidine might have higher bactericidal activity than other antiseptic agents. However, no randomised study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanexidine over conventional antiseptics. We compared the effect of aqueous olanexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine on the incidence of SSI following clean-contaminated surgery.Methods: This was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, blinded-endpoint superiority trial for surgical skin antisepsis in clean-contaminated gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeries in four Japanese hospitals. Patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective clean-contaminated wound surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 replacement ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned to surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 1·5% olanexidine or surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 10% povidone-iodine before surgery. We used olanexidine in a ready-to-use applicator, and povidone-iodine was administered by a brush or by compression using pliers. Both antiseptics were applied from the papilla with a cranial limit and to the upper thigh with a caudal limit. The antiseptics were allowed to dry for 3 min, and then surgery started. Participants, some investigators, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. Participant enrolment was done by non-masked investigators. The primary outcome was 30-day SSI assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The surgical wound site of each participant was observed daily. After discharge, participants underwent at least one outpatient visit within 30 days after surgery. This trial is registered with University hospital Medical Information Network, 000031560.Findings: Between June 10, 2018, and April 18, 2019, 883 patients were assessed for eligibility. 587 patients were eligible and 294 received olanexidine and 293 received aqueous povidone-iodine before surgery. 30-day SSI occurred in 19 (7%) patients in the olanexidine group and 39 patients (13%) patients in the povidone-iodine group (adjusted risk difference -0·069; 90% CI -0·109 to -0·029; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 90% CI 0·30 to 0·74; p=0·002). Five patients (2%) in the olanexidine group and five (2%) in the povidone-iodine group developed adverse skin reactions (adjusted RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·29 to 3·40; p=1·00).Interpretation: Olanexidine significantly reduced the occurrence of overall SSI and superficial incisional SSI compared with aqueous povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Our results indicate that olanexidine might have a role to prevent SSI in patients who undergo clean-contaminated surgeries.Funding: Keio University and Ohyama Health Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intravitreal injections have become the most commonly performed ophthalmic procedure, transforming modern retina practice. Postinjection endophthalmitis, while rare, remains the most feared potential complication. Prophylaxis measures including topical antisepsis, hand hygiene, gloves, masks, and drapes have all been proposed to help prevent postinjection endophthalmitis; however, there remains significant variation in protocol, given the lack of agreement among retina specialists on which steps are crucial to prevent endophthalmitis. With millions of injections performed annually, collating data have helped us better understand risk factors for endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection. We summarize the consensus guidelines for intravitreal injection technique and comprehensively review the literature on prevention of postinjection endophthalmitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection (SSI) and the incidence of skin adverse events do not reach a consistent statement and conclusion. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative surgical site infection and the incidence of corresponding skin adverse events. Method: Substantial studies related to "skin antiseptic" and "surgical site infection" were consulted on PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CNKI. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative SSI. The secondary outcome was associated with skin adverse events. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 software. Results: A total of 30 studies were included, including 29,006 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.77; p < 0.00001, I2 = 57%). Further subgroup analysis showed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI in clean surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–0.98; p = 0.03), I2 = 28%) and clean-contaminated surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–0.73; p < 0.00001, I2 = 43%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups. Conclusion: Chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI, especially for the clean-contaminated surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The ideal antiseptic agent for skin preparation before elective cesarean section (CS) is not yet determined. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of skin preparation by chlorhexidine-alcohol compared with povidone-iodine before elective CS on the rate of surgical site infection (SSI).Materials and methods: This prospective observational study included a total of 1424 pregnant women at term who were candidates for the elective CS and were divided into two equal groups of 712 patients in each, group 1 (chlorhexidine-alcohol group) and group 2 (povidone-iodine group). Patients were followed up at 1 week and 1 month postoperative to determine the rate of SSI.Results: The rate of SSI was 3.7% (26 patients) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group compared with 4.6% (33 patients) in the povidone-iodine group (odds ratio: 0.7798, 95% CI: 0.46-1.3, p = .35), nine patients in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group, and 10 patients in the povidone-iodine group required resuturing (odds ratio: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.36-2.2, p = .82). Four patients (0.56%) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and five patients (0.7%) in the povidone-iodine group developed endometritis (p = .74). The rate or readmission because of SSI was 2.7% (19 patients) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 2.9% (21 patients) in the povidone-iodine group (p = .75).Conclusions: Skin preparation with either chlorhexidine-alcohol or povidone-iodine resulted in comparable rates of SSIs. Accordingly, both are suitable antiseptic agents for skin preparation before elective CS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare povidone-iodine with chlorhexidine alcohol solutions for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) in malignant and premalignant gynaecologic diseases, and to evaluate the effects of temperature on SSI at 25 °C and 37 °C.Study Design: This was a randomized controlled trial of a cohort of 220 patients undergoing surgery for malignant or premalignant conditions. Preoperative skin preparations were performed with 10% povidone-iodine at 25 °C (PI), 10% povidone-iodine at 37 °C (warm PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate with alcohol at 25 °C (CH) and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate with alcohol at 37 °C (warm CH) for each group. All women included in the study received 1 g intravenous cefazolin antibioprophylaxis 30 min before skin incision. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days of surgery, and secondary outcomes were identification of the causative organism and clinical factors that may be associated with SSI.Results: SSIs were detected in 24 (10.9%) patients. Except for two organ/space-specific SSIs, all were superficial SSIs. The frequency of SSI was significantly lower in the warm PI group than in the PI group (p = 0.032). There were no significant differences in the frequency of SSI between the groups in other binary comparisons. In addition, there was no significant difference between both povidone-iodine groups compared with both chlorhexidine alcohol groups in terms of the development of SSI (10.9% vs 11%, p = 1.00). SSI caused by micro-organisms was found in 18 patients, and Enterococcus faecalis was the most common reproducing organism in wound culture. Patients with SSI were significantly older (58.9 ± 11.4 vs 52.8 ± 12.3 years) and more likely to be readmitted to hospital [15 (62.5%) vs 9 (37.5%)] than patients without SSI.Conclusions: SSI rates can be reduced by warming povidone-iodine, but this effect could not be demonstrated with chlorhexidine solutions. When both groups of povidone-iodine were compared with both groups of chlorhexidine alcohol, no significant difference was found in the prevention of SSI in malignant and premalignant gynaecologic operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the aseptic technique used in the preparation of skin by operating room nurses. Materials and Methods: The data of this descriptive study was collected from the internet between March-June 2019 with the data collection form created by the researchers. The sample of the study consisted of 154 operating room nurses who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and able to use internet. Mean, standard deviation, number and percentage were used for data analysis. Results: In this study, only 30.5% (n:47) of the nurses stated that patients were routinely showered/bathed before surgery in the institution they work. Of the nurses, 63.6% (n:98) reported that hairs at the operation site were routinely removed and 60% (n:111) reported that hair removal was performed with a clipper. 69.8% (n:125) of the nurses stated that povidone iodine was used in skin antisepsis. 69.5% (n:107) of the nurses stated that they placed compresses on both sides of the patient to prevent accumulation of the antiseptic solution used in skin antisepsis. Conclusions: In conclusion, it was determined in this study that skin antisepsis was performed with appropriate antiseptic solution in a sufficient area, in a sufficient time and with appropriate technique. However, it is recommended to update the knowledge of the operating room nurses to prevent surgical site infections due to the low rate of routine application of the bath / shower, making the routine mostly regardless of whether hair removal is required or not, and using the razor blade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aesthetic treatments are often performed to offer patients an enhanced version of themselves, but it could be argued that outcomes are being compromised by poor skin preparation prior to injectable procedures. A search for consistent evidence-based guidance proved difficult; however, there are certain products which repeatedly surface in the name of effective skin antisepsis, such as chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine. The Nursing and Midwifery Council states that its registrants must deliver care based on best practice and the best evidence available. It is therefore the responsibility of all nurses to maintain a high standard of care, not only in the treatments they offer, but also in the entire treatment journey. This means educating patients about their procedure and supporting this with written guidance both before and after treatment. It is also recommended that each aesthetic practitioner uses the best evidence available to establish their own written skin preparation protocol, to ensure consistently high standards of skin decontamination in their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare preoperative chlorhexidine-alcohol topical antiseptic agent with povidone-iodine in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for benign indications.Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy from July 2012 to February 2015 in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative was performed. The primary exposure was the use of chlorhexidine-alcohol or povidone-iodine. The primary outcome was surgical site infection within 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching analysis were done to estimate the independent association of skin antiseptic choice on the rate of surgical site infection.Results: Of the total 4,259 abdominal hysterectomies included, chlorhexidine-alcohol was used in 70.5% (n=3,005) and povidone-iodine in 29.5% (n=1,254) of surgeries. The overall unadjusted rate of any surgical site infection was 2.9% (95% CI 2.5-3.5; n=124). The unadjusted rate of surgical site infection 2.6% (95% CI 2.1-3.3; n=79) for chlorhexidine-alcohol and 3.6% (95% CI 2.7-4.8; n=45; P=.09) for the povidone-iodine group. Using multivariate logistic regression and adjusting for differences between populations in patient demographic factors (age and body mass index), medical comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists class and diabetes status), perioperative variables (estimated blood loss, surgical time, intraoperative adhesions, and antibiotic categories), and hospital characteristics (bed size and teaching status), we estimate that patients receiving chlorhexidine-alcohol had 44% lower odds of developing a surgical site infection (adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.85, P=.01). Propensity score matching (one to one) yielded 808 patients in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 845 patients in the povidone-iodine group. In the matched groups, the rate of surgical site infection was 1.5% (95% CI 0.8-2.6; n=12) for the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 4.7% (95% CI 3.5-6.4; n=40) for the povidone-iodine group (P<.001).Conclusion: In abdominal hysterectomy performed for benign indications, chlorhexidine-alcohol-based skin antisepsis is associated with overall lower odds of surgical site infection compared with povidone-iodine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor of the Journal. The retraction has been made because the Editor has been informed that a similar article containing the same research was submitted to another journal by other authors. The authors have admitted errors in drafting and submitting the paper and apologise for the mistakes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aseptic technique is essential for the prevention of infection during labour epidural procedures. The literature suggests there is significant variability in aseptic practice among clinicians which often depends on personal beliefs rather than scientific evidence. The main objective of this survey was to determine which components of aseptic precautions in labour epidural anesthesia were considered essential by anesthesiologists. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire regarding commonly used aseptic techniques during epidural insertion was distributed via regular mail to 1047 practicing anesthesiologists in Ontario, Canada. Questions were formulated with assistance from community and university based obstetrical anesthesiologists. The survey focused on practice demographics, methods of asepsis during preparation, and aseptic technique during epidural insertion. Results: The response rate for this survey was 42% (40% were non-teaching and 60% academic physicians). The major findings revealed significant heterogeneity; 38% of respondents wore a sterile gown, 68% selected chlorhexidine gluconate as their ideal antiseptic, 32% used povidone iodine, and 78% did not consider the use of a filter needle essential to aseptic practice. Furthermore, while all respondents acknowledged hand-washing essential to aseptic practice, high variability regarding details of hand- washing technique was evident between individuals. Significant differences in aseptic practice were also observed between non-teaching and teaching hospitals. Conclusion: Aseptic technique for labour epidural insertion varies among individuals and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Earlier a randomized trial showed efficacy of a multifaceted intervention approach for reducing surgical site infection: hand hygiene, vascular care, environmental cleaning, patient decolonization (nasal povidone iodine, chlorhexidine wipes), with feedback on pathogen transmission. The follow-up prospective observational study showed effectiveness when applied to all operating rooms of an inpatient surgical suite. In practice, many organizations will at baseline not be using conditions equivalent to the control groups but instead functionally have had ongoing a single intervention for infection control (e.g., encouraging better hand hygiene). Organizations also differ in how well and long they survey every surgical patient for postoperative surgical site infection. Thus, estimation of the expected net cost savings from implementing multifaceted intervention depends on the relative efficacy of multifaceted approach versus single intervention approaches and on the incidence of surgical site infection, the latter depending itself on the monitoring period for infection development. The retrospective cohort analysis included 4865 patients from two single intervention and two multifaceted studies, each of the four studies with matched control groups. We used Poisson regression with robust variance to estimate the relative risk reduction in surgical site infections for the multifaceted approach versus single interventions and, with 30-day follow-up versus ≥60-day follow-up for infection. The multifaceted approach was associated with an estimated 68% reduction in postoperative surgical site infections relative to single interventions (risk ratio 0.32, 97.5% confidence interval 0.15–0.70, P = 0.001). There were approximately 2.61-fold more surgical site infections detected with follow-up for at least 60 days of medical records relative to 30 days of records reviewed (97.5% CI 1.62 to 4.21, P < 0.001). An evidence-based, multifaceted approach to anesthesia work area infection control can generate substantial reductions in surgical site infections. A follow-up period of at least 60-days is indicated for infection detection. • Randomized trial showed that a bundle and feedback reduce surgical site infections. • Prospective observational study showed effectiveness of this multifaceted intervention. • Comparisons compared with control do not match baseline of many specialties and hospitals. • Surgical site infections with multifaceted approach, risk ratio 0.32 vs. single interventions. • Many (2.61-fold) more infections detected with follow-up for at least 60 days of medical records. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the effect of ocular antiseptic treatment in terms of 0.05% aqueous chlorhexidine, 5% povidone‐iodine (PI) and 5% betadine on cell viability and mucin secretion of primary cultured human goblet cells. Methods: Cell viability of primary cultured human goblet cells was analysed using lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and tetrazolium dye (MTT) colorimetric assays. Expression of mucin was visualized by immunohistochemical staining of MUC5AC. Results: According to the LDH assay, PI and betadine significantly reduced goblet cell survival compared to controls (mean cell survival 23% ± 6 and 23% ± 7, respectively) (p < 0.05), whereas chlorhexidine (mean cell survival 78 ± 17) did not significantly affect goblet cell viability. Similar results were obtained from the MTT assay, where PI and betadine caused a significant loss of goblet cells (mean cell survival 26% ± 12 and 26% ± 13, respectively) (p < 0.05), and chlorhexidine caused a non‐significant loss of goblet cells compared to controls (mean cell survival 79% ± 8). Conclusions: PI and betadine, the most used antiseptic treatments prior to ocular surgery, are significantly more cytotoxic on conjunctival goblet cells compared to chlorhexidine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adequate skin preparation is essential to preventing surgical site infection. Many products are available, each with specific manufacturers' directions. This lack of standardization may lead to incorrect use of the agents and affect the bacterial load reduction. We hypothesize that a lack of adherence to utilization protocols for surgical skin antiseptics affects bacterial load reduction.Methods: Thirty subjects who routinely perform surgical skin preparation were recruited from four hospitals. Participants completed a questionnaire of both demographics and familiarity with two of the most common skin prep formulas: Chlorhexidine gluconate-isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) and povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub and paint. Randomly selecting one formula, subjects performed skin preparation for ankle surgery on a healthy standardized patient. This was repeated using the second formula on the opposite ankle. Performance was recorded and reviewed by two independent evaluators using standardized dichotomous checklists created against the manufacturer's recommended application. Swabs of the patients' first interweb space and medial malleolus were obtained before, 1 min after, and 30 min after prep, and plated on Luria Bertani agar. Bacterial loads were measured in colony forming units (CFUs) for each anatomical site. Data was analyzed using a univariate linear regression.Results: Subjects had an average of 12.7 ± 2.2 y operating room experience and 8.8 ± 1.5 y of skin prep experience. Despite this, no participant performed 100% of the manufacturers' steps correctly. All essential formula-specific steps were performed 90% of the time for CHG-IPA and 33.3% for PVI (p = 0.0001). No correlation was found between experience or familiarity and number of correct steps for either formula. Average reduction in CFUs was not different between CHG-IPA and PVI at 30 min for all anatomical sites (75.2 ± 5.4% vs. 73.7 ± 4.5%, p = 0.7662). Bacterial reductions at 30 min following skin prep were not substantially correlated with operator experience, protocol compliance, or total prep time for either formula.Conclusion: This study demonstrates existing problems with infection prevention as those tasked with pre-operative skin preparation do so with tremendous incongruence according to manufacturer guidelines. No effect on bacterial load was identified, however with a larger sample size this may be noted. Standardization of the prep solutions as well as simplification and education of the correct techniques may enhance protocol compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the effectiveness of preoperative urethral sterilisation with chlorhexidine gel in rendering the urethra as sterile as the skin of the genital area, with the skin sterilised as per the International Society for Sexual Medicine guidelines for penile prosthesis implantation. A total of 111 male patients undergoing sterile andrological surgical procedures were divided into a control group (N = 61) and a chlorhexidine gel group (N = 50). Patients in the chlorhexidine group received urethral instillation with 6 mL of chlorhexidine preoperatively and on table. Patients from both groups received on-table skin preparation using povidone iodine and chlorhexidine povidone iodine. At the end of surgery, swabs were obtained from urethra and the penile skin. Skin and urethral swabs were compared for bacterial colonisation by culture and sensitivity. Of the 111 patients, 16 had urethral colonisation and 10 had skin contamination, and they were all in the control group. The most common organism detected in both the urethral and skin samples was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus aureus. Urethral colonisation was significantly greater in the control group compared to the chlorhexidine group, at 16/61 vs 0/50 (P = 0.001). Similarly, skin colonisation was significantly greater in the control group compared to the chlorhexidine group, at 10/61 vs 0/50, (P = 0.002). Chlorhexidine gel is a powerful sterilising agent that will render the urethra sterile. None [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intravascular-catheter-related infections are frequent life-threatening events in health care, but incidence can be decreased by improvements in the quality of care. Optimisation of skin antisepsis is essential to prevent short-term catheter-related infections. We hypothesised that chlorhexidine-alcohol would be more effective than povidone iodine-alcohol as a skin antiseptic to prevent intravascular-catheter-related infections.Methods: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we enrolled consecutive adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to one of 11 French intensive-care units and requiring at least one of central-venous, haemodialysis, or arterial catheters. Before catheter insertion, we randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients via a secure web-based random-number generator (permuted blocks of eight, stratified by centre) to have all intravascular catheters prepared with 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine-alcohol) or 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol (povidone iodine-alcohol), with or without scrubbing of the skin with detergent before antiseptic application. Physicians and nurses were not masked to group assignment but microbiologists and outcome assessors were. The primary outcome was the incidence of catheter-related infections with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01629550 and is closed to new participants.Findings: Between Oct 26, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, 2546 patients were eligible to participate in the study. We randomly assigned 1181 patients (2547 catheters) to chlorhexidine-alcohol (594 patients with scrubbing, 587 without) and 1168 (2612 catheters) to povidone iodine-alcohol (580 patients with scrubbing, 588 without). Chlorhexidine-alcohol was associated with lower incidence of catheter-related infections (0·28 vs 1·77 per 1000 catheter-days with povidone iodine-alcohol; hazard ratio 0·15, 95% CI 0·05-0·41; p=0·0002). Scrubbing was not associated with a significant difference in catheter colonisation (p=0·3877). No systemic adverse events were reported, but severe skin reactions occurred more frequently in those assigned to chlorhexidine-alcohol (27 [3%] patients vs seven [1%] with povidone iodine-alcohol; p=0·0017) and led to chlorhexidine discontinuation in two patients.Interpretation: For skin antisepsis, chlorhexidine-alcohol provides greater protection against short-term catheter-related infections than does povidone iodine-alcohol and should be included in all bundles for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections.Funding: University Hospital of Poitiers, CareFusion. INSET: Research in context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although povidone-iodine (iodine) is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved vaginal antiseptic solution, there is a lack of comparative data evaluating alternatives. Chlorhexidine gluconate is readily accessible, recommended by multiple societies as an alternative for patients with iodine allergy, and preliminary data indicate that it may provide superior antisepsis.Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine and iodine as presurgical vaginal antiseptic solutions in preventing the most common surgery-associated infection after gynecologic surgery, urinary tract infections.Study Design: We conducted a randomized controlled noninferiority trial among women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. The primary outcome measure was symptomatic urinary tract infection within 2 weeks after surgery. The secondary outcomes included culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery, symptomatic urinary tract infections at 6 weeks after surgery, any surgical site infection at 2 weeks after surgery, and patient-reported vaginal irritation after surgery. We required 58 participants per arm to demonstrate noninferiority of chlorhexidine vs iodine (margin of relative risk of <1.5 for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval) between groups for the primary outcome.Results: A total of 119 participants (61 in the chlorhexidine group and 58 in the iodine group) completed the primary outcome and were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the groups' demographic characteristics, medical history, operations performed, or perioperative factors. Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine concerning the primary outcome, symptomatic urinary tract infection at 2 weeks after surgery (10% vs 17%; relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [-∞, 1.3]). Furthermore, chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for the secondary urinary tract infection outcomes (culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery and symptomatic urinary tract infection at 6 weeks after surgery). Groups were similar in terms of surgical site infection (overall 3/119 [2.5%]) and presence of any vaginal irritation (4/54 [7.4%], for both groups).Conclusion: Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for vaginal antisepsis before urogynecologic surgery concerning urinary tract infection. Given the similar postoperative urinary tract infection rates demonstrated in this study and the lack of difference in vaginal irritation, chlorhexidine seemed to be a safe and reasonable option for vaginal antisepsis before surgical procedures. Additional studies are needed to further examine surgical site infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Periapical surgery needs asepsis, a bloodless field for ensuring success of the treatment. Efficacy of Povidone Iodine (PVI) in the elimination of pathogen causing periapical lesions is well established. PVI is also widely used as a disinfectant, sclerosing agent, styptic as well as an anti-odematous agent. Materials and Methods: This prospective pilot study done on 20 males between 20-40 years age group with periapical lesions in single rooted maxillary anterior tooth of 1-2 cm in diameter. The bleeding time, clotting time, bleeding time at the apex, drugs used and visual analogue scale of oedema on postoperative days were obtained. Descriptive statistics, paired t test and independent t-test were used. Results and Conclusion: Results show a statistically significant reduction in the time required to achieve a bloodless field and a marked decrease in oedema in the first and second postoperative days resulting in lesser consumption of NSAIDs. In conclusion, the effect of PVI in periapical surgery seems to reduce the bleeding time at apex, total dose of NSAIDs used, oedema on first two postoperative days with high statistical significance. Hence the routine use of saline in periapical surgeries may be effectively substituted with PVI. The finding of this pilot study has to be evaluated using wider samples for effective clinical translations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sepsis is the second leading cause of death in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD). The average cost to the healthcare system for catheter-related infections (CRI) ranges from $4000 to $80,235 for each occurrence. CRI is a significant health problem leading to increased hospitalizations, morbidity, mortality, and a financial burden to the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of implementing published guidelines that pertain to patients on HD. Adult patients receiving long-term HD through a tunneled and cuffed HD catheter in an outpatient dialysis setting were studied. One-hundred and eighty-seven patients on HD were instituted on published guidelines (chlorhexidine to clean the exit site and HD catheters/hubs, hand washing, aseptic technique with site/dressing changes/placing patients on HD, setting up an infrastructure to support monitoring CRI) and prospectively followed from May 2009 to April 2010. Comparison was made to a retrospective cohort of 198 patients on HD from May 2008 to April 2009 in the same unit using standard care (sodium hypochlorite to clean the exit site; povidone iodine to clean the HD catheter hubs). A t-test analysis compared the two groups for differences. The number of infections decreased from 1.7 to 0.2 per 1000 catheter days during a 12-month period (p = 0.005). The number needed to prevent one adverse outcome of a CRI was 22 patients, with a relative risk of 0.11 and relative risk reduction of 89% in the treated group. The return on investment for implementing the program was 169% in one year, and the break-even point occurred within the first quarter. The projected annual savings in one dialysis unit was $141,606 using the project hospital's data and $179,010 using national data. CRI in patients on HD are preventable. The analysis revealed a significant reduction in CRI by implementing published guidelines with a significant cost savings to the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]