The impact of surgical hand antisepsis technique on surgical site infection

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.

Surgical hand antisepsis: experimental study

Purpose

Nosocomial infections account for one of the most serious complications in hospitalized patients around the world. Surgical site infections have significant economic implications, and surgical antisepsis plays an important role in such processes.

Methods

With prior approval by the Institutional Review Board and informed consent, 10 volunteers were randomly assigned to 3 protocols on hand antisepsis: protocol A (chloroxylenol 3%), protocol B (benzalkonium chloride at 1%), and protocol C (ethyl alcohol 61%, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate). Smears from both hands were cultured after each hand pro tocol (t0) and at the end of suturing (t1). Colony forming units were counted (CFUs on blood agar dishes) with digital counting software (Open CFU). Friedman test was used to compare the mean values among the groups, and a Bonferroni correction was made to determine the dissimilar group, with a P = 0.015.

Results

At t0 for protocol A the CFU count was 82.8 ± 1.3; protocol B was 9.7 ± 30; protocol C was 0.1 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). At t1 for protocol A the CFU was 80.7 ± 89.4; protocol B was 7.5 ± 32; protocol C was 0.0 ± 0.0 (P < 0.001). No adverse events were present among the subjects.

Conclusion

Ethyl alcohol at 61% with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate showed higher efficacy than the traditional washing antiseptics.

Effectiveness of Preoperative Antibiotics in Preventing Surgical Site Infection After Common Soft Tissue Procedures of the Hand

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prophylaxis is a common but controversial practice for clean soft tissue procedures of the hand, such as carpal tunnel release or trigger finger release. Previous studies report no substantial reduction in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after antibiotic prophylaxis, yet are limited in power by low sample sizes and low overall rates of postoperative infection.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Is there evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of SSI after soft tissue hand surgery when using propensity score matching to control for potential confounding variables such as demographics, procedure type, medication use, existing comorbidities, and postoperative events?

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used the Truven Health MarketScan databases, large, multistate commercial insurance claims databases corresponding to inpatient and outpatient services and outpatient drug claims made between January 2007 and December 2014. The database includes records for patients enrolled in health insurance plans from self-insured employers and other private payers. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, ganglion and retinacular cyst excision, de Quervain's release, or soft tissue mass excision, and to assign patients to one of two cohorts based on whether they had received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. We identified 943,741 patients, of whom 426,755 (45%) were excluded after meeting one or more exclusion criteria: 357,500 (38%) did not have 12 months of consecutive insurance enrollment before surgery or 1 month of enrollment after surgery; 60,693 (6%) had concomitant bony, implant, or incision and drainage or débridement procedures; and 94,141 (10%) did not have complete data. In all, our initial cohort consisted of 516,986 patients, among whom 58,201 (11%) received antibiotic prophylaxis. Propensity scores were calculated and used to create cohorts matched on potential risk factors for SSI, including age, procedure type, recent use of steroids and immunosuppressive agents, diabetes, HIV/AIDs, tobacco use, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol abuse, malnutrition, history of prior SSI, and local procedure volume. Multivariable logistic regression before and after propensity score matching was used to test whether antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a decrease in the risk of SSI within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

After controlling for patient demographics, hand procedure type, medication use, existing comorbidities (eg, diabetes, HIV/AIDs, tobacco use, obesity), and postoperative events through propensity score matching, we found that the risk of postoperative SSI was no different between patients who had received antibiotic prophylaxis and those who had not (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93-1.13; p = 0.585).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis for common soft tissue procedures of the hand is not associated with reduction in postoperative infection risk. While our analysis cannot account for factors that are not captured in the billing process, this study nevertheless provides strong evidence against unnecessary use of antibiotics before these procedures, especially given the difficulty of conducting a randomized prospective study with a sample size large enough to detect the effect of prophylaxis on the low baseline risk of infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.