Effect of surgical site infections with waterless and traditional hand scrubbing protocols on bacterial growth

Best products for skin antisepsis

BACKGROUND

Skin antiseptics are used for several purposes before surgical procedures, for bathing high-risk patients as a means of reducing central line-associated infections and other health care associated infections.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to update the evidence on skin antiseptic products and practices.

RESULTS

Current guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend preoperative baths or showers with a plain or antimicrobial soap prior to surgery, but do not make recommendations on the timing of baths, the total number of baths needed, or about the use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CGH)-impregnated cloths. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that pre-operative surgical hand antisepsis using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub yields similar SSI rates. Other studies have reported that using an alcohol-based hand rub caused less skin irritation, was easier to use, and required shorter scrub times than using antimicrobial soap. Current SSI prevention guidelines recommend using an alcohol-containing antiseptic for surgical site infection. Commonly used products contain isopropanol combined with either CHG or with povidone-iodine. Surgical site preparation protocols for shoulder surgery in men may need to include coverage for anaerobes. Several studies suggest the need to monitor and improve surgical site preparation techniques. Daily bathing of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a CHG-containing soap reduces the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Evidence for a similar effect in non-ICU patients is mixed. Despite widespread CHG bathing of ICU patients, numerous barriers to its effective implementation exist. Measuring CHG levels on the skin is useful for identifying gaps in coverage and suboptimal skin concentrations. Using alcohol-based products with at least 2% CHG for skin preparation prior to central line insertion reduces CLABSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress has been made on skin antisepsis products and protocols, but improvements in technique are still needed.

Using Waterless Alcohol-based Antiseptic for Skin Preparation and Active Thermal Support in Laboratory Rats

Rodents are frequently used for models that require surgical procedures. At our institution, laboratory rats are increasingly preferred for investigations of neurologic disorders, cardiovascular interventions, and assessment and treatment of addictive and depressive behaviors. For these types of studies, surgical preparations of the head and neck areas are necessary for catheterization and instrumentation. Based upon our former work in laboratory mice, we sought to improve rat surgery outcomes and confirm the efficacy of a waterless alcohol-based (WAB) antiseptic for skin disinfection prior to incision. In addition, we wanted to investigate whether active warming efforts improved perioperative body temperatures for rats to aid in return to consciousness. Prior to cranial surgical incision and placement in stereotactic equipment, rats were assessed after skin preparation with WAB and after thermal interventions, including prewarming cages for 30 min before anesthesia and delivery of warmed fluid (NaCl) supplementation. Core temperatures were recorded and aerobic culture swabs collected from surgical sites at multiple time points. As previously shown in mice, bacterial counts in rats were effectively diminished by WAB agents. Assessment of intraoperative body temperature trajectories did not identify appreciable differences between control rats and rats that were exposed to prewarming or warmed fluid supplementation or both. However, heavier male rats recovered more rapidly from isoflurane anesthesia than did lighter male and female rats. Although these thermal support measures did not significantly improve anesthetic recovery times in rats, animals warmed for 30 min trended toward a faster return to righting reflex after exposure to isoflurane. These findings confirm that WAB antiseptic is an acceptable option for skin preparation in rats and suggest that continued evaluation of thermal interventions remains of interest for improved outcomes in rat surgery.

Scrubbing technique and surgical site infections: an analysis of 14,200 neurosurgical cases

OBJECTIVE

The preoperative scrub has been shown to lower the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs). Various scrubbing and gloving techniques exist; however, it is unknown how specific scrubbing technique influences SSI rates in neurosurgery. The authors aimed to assess whether the range of scrubbing practice in neurosurgery is associated with the incidence of SSIs.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database to identify all 90-day SSIs for neurosurgical procedures between 2012 and 2017 at one of their teaching hospitals. SSIs were classified by procedure type (craniotomy, shunt, fusion, or laminectomy). Surveys were administered to attending and resident physicians to understand the variation in scrubbing methods (wet vs dry, iodine vs chlorhexidine, single vs double glove). The chi-square followed by multivariate logistic regression analyses were utilized to identify independent predictors of SSI.

RESULTS

Forty-two operating physicians were included in the study (18 attending physicians, 24 resident physicians), who performed 14,200 total cases. Overall, SSI rates were 2.1% (296 SSIs of 14,200 total cases) and 2.0% (192 of 9,669 cases) for attending physicians and residents, respectively. Shunts were independently associated with an increased risk of SSI (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.3-2.1]), whereas laminectomies were associated with a decreased SSI risk (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2-0.8]). Wet versus dry scrub (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.6-1.4]), iodine versus chlorhexidine (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4-1.1]), and single- versus double-gloving (OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.8-1.4]) preferences were not associated with SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest that perioperative infection is associated with personal scrubbing or gloving preference in neurosurgical procedures.

Effectiveness of Surgical hand Washing with Chlorhexidine, Providone iodine and Alcohol on Reducing the Microorganisms on the Hands: A Systematic Review

Background: Postoperative infection is one of the causes of mortality and the hands of the surgical team are the most common cause. According to the The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), proper hand washing can reduce the occurrence of nosocomial infections by up to 30%. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of surgical hand washing using chlorhexidine, providone iodine and alcohol in reducing the microorganisms on the hand.Method: The data was collected from the following electronic databases: Science Direct, Springer link, Scopus and ProQuest. The search obtained 11 articles in accordance with the inclusion criteria and we obtained the literature in full text form.Result: The results of the study found three articles that mentioned hand washing with an alcohol hand rub as being more effective than iodine and chlorhexidine providone. There was one article described that both alcohol hand rub and chlorhexidine are more effective than iodine providone, Another article mentioned that chlorhexidine, providone iodine and alcohol hand rub were equally effective at reducing microorganisms contaminating the hand.Conclusion: The conclusion of the study is that surgical hand washing using chlorhexidine, providone iodine and alcohol are all effective at reducing microorganisms.

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.

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.

Comparison of Aqueous and Alcohol-based Agents for Presurgical Skin Preparation Methods in Mice

Preparing the skin of rodents for surgery often involves multiple applications of antiseptic agents. However, fewer applications may achieve the same antiseptic outcome. We evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy and effects on intraoperative body temperature of various surgical scrub agents, including novel waterless alcohol-based (WAB) options. Prior to ventral laparotomy, female C57BL/6 mice were treated with 0.9% saline (control); 70% ethanol; 10% povidone-iodine alternated with saline or 70% ethanol; 2% chlorhexidine digluconate alternated with saline or 70% ethanol; or 1 of 3 WAB products-commercial surgical scrub A, commercial surgical scrub B, or a common commercial hand sanitizer. Core temperatures were recorded, and aerobic culture swabs were collected from the surgical site at multiple time points. Intraoperative temperature trajectories for animals treated with scrub B, 10% povidone-iodine with saline, or hand sanitizer did not differ from saline (control). Temperature trajectories of mice treated with other scrub agents did differ significantly from saline. Bacteria were not detected at the operative site after 3 scrubs of 70% ethanol or 10% povidone-iodine alternated with ethanol, 2 scrubs of scrub A or B, 1 scrub of hand sanitizer, and both 1 and 3 scrubs of 2% chlorhexidine alternated with ethanol. Scrub B and 2% chlorhexidine-ethanol demonstrated prolonged antibacterial efficacy. Histology of corresponding haired skin sections revealed no differences in postoperative healing between groups, and no postoperative infections occurred. These results indicate that various novel WAB disinfectants, particularly scrub B (61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate), mitigate intraoperative temperature effects associated with several traditional agents and combinations. Furthermore, reduction of skin bacterial load without adverse effects on healing was seen with fewer than triplicate applications of most tested agents. Ultimately effective skin preparation can be achieved by using only 1 or 2 applications of scrub, thus rendering the triplicate skin-prep method unnecessary in laboratory mice.

Waterless Hand Rub Versus Traditional Hand Scrub Methods for Preventing the Surgical Site Infection in Orthopedic Surgery

MINI: Fourteen hundred consecutive patients were investigated for evaluating the utility of waterless hand rub before orthopaedic surgery. The risk in the surgical site infection incidence was the same, but costs of liquids used for hand hygiene were cheaper and the hand hygiene time was shorter for waterless protocol, compared with traditional hand scrub.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare SSI incidences, the cost of hand hygiene agents, and hand hygiene time between the traditional hand scrub and the waterless hand rub protocols before orthopedic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical site infections (SSI) prolong hospitalization and are a leading nosocomial cause of morbidity and a source of excess cost. Recently, a waterless hand rub protocol comprising alcohol based chlorhexidine gluconate for use before surgery was developed, but no studies have yet examined its utility in orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

Fourteen hundred consecutive patients who underwent orthopedic surgery (spine, joint replacement, hand, and trauma surgeries) in our hospital since April 1, 2012 were included. A total of 712 cases underwent following traditional hand scrub between April 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013 and 688 cases underwent following waterless hand rub between June 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014. We compared SSI incidences within all and each subcategory between two hand hygiene protocols. All patients were screened for SSI within 1 year after surgery. We compared the cost of hand hygiene agents and hand hygiene time between two groups.

RESULTS

The SSI incidences were 1.3% (9 of 712) following the traditional protocol (2 deep and 7 superficial infections) and 1.1% (8 of 688) following the waterless protocol (all superficial infections). There were no significant differences between the two groups. The costs of liquids used for one hand hygiene were about $2 for traditional hand scrub and less than $1 for waterless hand rub. The mean hand hygiene time was 264 seconds with the traditional protocol and 160 seconds with the waterless protocol.

CONCLUSION

Waterless hand rub with an alcohol based chlorhexidine gluconate solution can be a safe, quick, and cost-effective alternative to traditional hand scrub.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Antiseptic Effect of Conventional Povidone–Iodine Scrub, Chlorhexidine Scrub, and Waterless Hand Rub in a Surgical Room: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University—Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled.

INTERVENTION

Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10% povidone–iodine scrub, conventional 4% chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol).

RESULTS

Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone–iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:417–422

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Usage of ultraviolet test method for monitoring the efficacy of surgical hand rub technique among medical students

BACKGROUND

Adequate hand movements are essential in surgical hand rub, so it is important for medical students to learn it correctly. To assess its efficacy, we aimed to use ultraviolet (UV) light test after applying fluorescent solution.

METHODS

Digital images of the hands of 253 medical students were analyzed during "Basic Surgical Techniques" course on the 10th (Survey 1) and 14th (Survey 2) week of the curriculum to check the process and the skills development. The last step of the surgical hand rub was performed with a fluorescent solution, and then the hands were placed under UV light. Photographs were taken and analyzed. Every uncovered area was considered an error. Number and the localization of missed spots and its extent was determined. For evaluation, palmar (P) and dorsal (D) sides of the hands were divided into regions of interest (1-distal phalanxes, 2-thumb and first metacarpus, 3-second to fifth fingers, and 4-second to fifth metacarpals).

RESULTS

Various magnitude and number of failure occurred in 123 (48.61%) students in survey 1 and in 65 (25.69%) in survey 2. The most frequent sites of the missed spots were D/2 and P/4 region in survey 1 and D/1 and P/4 in survey 2. There was an improvement seen in survey 2, as shown by a decrease in the number and extent of missed spots. Right-handed students made fewer mistakes on their nondominant hands than left-handed students (n = 23) did.

DISCUSSION

The method was suitable to monitor the efficacy of surgical hand rub technique and identify the mistakes and the critical sites. The main advantage of the UV test was the immediate feedback, which resulted in a distinct improvement.

CONCLUSION

Applying the UV test to the medical education and training may contribute to improvement in the compliance and the efficacy of the technique of surgical hand rub among the students.

Antibacterial effects on dry-fast and traditional water-based surgical scrubbing methods: a two-time points experimental study

This study determined the in-use effects of dry-fast and traditional hand-washing surgical scrubs among operating room staff members. This is a static group comparison study with purposive sampling. A total of 156 staff members were recruited in an operating room in a medical center located in southern Taiwan. The participants were divided into traditional and dry-fast hand-washing groups. Microbial counts were measured right after the two groups finished surgical scrubbing and at the completion of surgery. The results showed that the use of dry-fast antisepsis has a better persistent effect (P = 0.001), more nurses chose dry-fast antisepsis than surgeons (P = 0.012), and the post-operation number of colonies for nurses was significantly higher than that for surgeons (P = 0.003). Operating room nurses are long-term and frequent users of antibacterial agents, and their requirement of skin protection is higher. The dry-fast technique has the advantage of being less irritating to the skin and less time consuming; therefore, brush-free and dry-fast antisepsis is recommended.