Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital

Pre-surgical hand preparation in veterinary practice

The objective of this paper is to review the evidence for different methods of surgical hand preparation applicable to veterinary practice. Surgical hand preparation is an essential step in performing surgery as a veterinarian. Recommended protocols and products for surgical hand preparation have varied since its inception in the late 1800s. Many factors must be considered when assessing the efficacy, safety, and users' compliance with any available product. Traditional scrub methods employing chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine have been compared to alcohol-based rub protocols with respect to immediate and prolonged efficacy, safety, compliance, requirements for theatre furniture, cost and water usage. Although much of the comparative data has been generated in human medical facilities, extrapolation of the data to veterinary surgery is appropriate. Considerations for veterinary practice are specifically discussed. Overall, the benefits of alcohol-based rubs indicate that this should be the preferred method of pre-surgical hand preparation for veterinarians in all types of practice.

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.

Surgical hand hygiene and febrile urinary tract infections in endourological surgery: a single-centre prospective cohort study

Surgical hand hygiene reduces the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs). SSIs are not considered an issue in endourological surgery, whereas febrile urinary tract infections (f-UTIs) and urological sepsis are becoming problematic. We wondered whether surgical hand hygiene is necessary for endourological surgery. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the influence of surgical hand hygiene on f-UTI onset in endourological surgery by comparing procedures in which surgical hand hygiene with double gloving was used with those in which regular hand hygiene with double gloving was used between April 2016 and July 2020. In this prospective cohort study of 477 patients who underwent endourological surgeries, surgeons in the surgical hand hygiene and regular hygiene groups performed surgery on 259 and 218 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient background, and multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in f-UTI onset (odds ratio, 0.87; p = 0.74) between the two groups. In conclusion, regular hand hygiene with double gloving may be considered an alternative to surgical hand hygiene to prevent endourological f-UTIs, which could alter operational protocols for endourological surgery. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.

The Green Operating Room: Simple Changes to Reduce Cost and Our Carbon Footprint

Generating over four billion pounds of waste each year, the healthcare system in the United States is the second largest contributor of trash with one-third produced by operating rooms. Our objective is to assess improvement in waste reduction and recycling after implementation of a Green Operating Room Committee (GORC) at our institution. A surgeon and nurse-initiated GORC was formed with members from corporate leadership, nursing, anesthesia, and OR staff. Initiatives for recycling opportunities, reduction of energy and water use as well as solid waste were implemented and the results were recorded. Since formation of GORC in 2008, our OR has diverted 6.5 tons of medical waste. An effort to recycle all single-use devices was implemented with annual solid waste reduction of approximately 12,860 lbs. Disposable OR foam padding was replaced with reusable gel pads at greater than $50,000 per year savings. Over 500 lbs of previously discarded batteries were salvaged from the OR and donated to charity or redistributed in the hospital ($9,000 annual savings). A “Power Down” initiative to turn off all anesthesia and OR lights and equipment not in use resulted in saving $33,000 and 234.3 metric tons of CO2 emissions reduced per year. Converting from soap to alcohol-based waterless scrub demonstrated a potential saving of 2.7 million liters of water annually. Formation of an OR committee dedicated to ecological initiatives can provide a significant opportunity to improve health care's impact on the environment and save money.

Association Between Eliminating Water From Surgical Hand Antisepsis at a Large Ophthalmic Surgical Hospital and Cost

Importance

Alcohol-based surgical scrub is recommended for presurgical antisepsis by leading health organizations. Despite this recommendation, water-based scrub techniques remain common practice at many institutions.

Objective

To calculate the potential financial savings that a large, subspecialty ophthalmic surgical center can achieve with a conversion to waterless surgical hand preparation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A review of accounting records associated with the purchase of scrubbing materials and water company invoices was conducted to assess direct costs attributable to water consumption and scrub materials for brushless, alcohol-based surgical scrub and water-based presurgical scrub. The flow rate of scrub sinks to estimate water consumption per year was tested. Savings associated with operating room (OR) and personnel time were calculated based on the prescribed scrub times for waterless techniques vs traditional running-water techniques. The study was conducted from January 5 to March 1, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes for this study were the quantity of water consumed by aqueous scrubbing procedures as well as the cost differences between alcohol-based surgical scrub and water-based scrub procedures per OR per year.

Results

Scrub sinks consumed 15.9 L of water in a 2-minute period, projecting a savings of 61 631 L and $277 in water and sewer cost per operating room per year. Alcohol-based surgical scrub cost $1083 less than aqueous soap applied from wall-mounted soap dispensers and $271 less than preimpregnated scrub brushes per OR per year in supply costs. The decrease in scrub time from adopting waterless scrub technique could save between approximately $280 000 and $348 000 per OR per year.

Conclusions and Relevance

Adopting waterless scrub techniques has the potential for economic savings attributable to water. Savings may be larger for surgical facilities performing more personnel-intensive procedures.

Two-Layer Wound Sealing before Surgical Hand Washing for Surgeons with a Minor Cut Injury on the Hand

Background: There is a lack of evidence-based recommendations for surgical hand washing when there is a minor cut on the hand. We sought to evaluate whether two-layer wound sealing functions as a barrier to prevent the spread of micro-organisms. Methods: We randomly categorized 20 surgeons into subjects with either a right- or left-hand injury. Each subject was assumed to have a minor injury on the assigned hand and the other hand was used as a control. Subjects applied a waterproof topical dressing as a first layer, then protected the injured area with a second layer using an antimicrobial drape, and finally performed surgical hand rubbing. Subjects stamped each hand onto an agar plate. The injured hands were checked by an investigator to confirm the wounded area remained properly sealed after hand rubbing. Colonies were counted and the micro-organisms were identified after 48 hours of incubation. Results: There was no leak found from two-layer wound sealing after hand washing. Mean number of the colonies was 0.2 on the injured hand and 0.25 on the uninjured hand (p = 0.772). The micro-organisms cultured from both the injured and uninjured hands were coagulase-negative staphylococci. Conclusions: Using a model for a minor cut injury on the hand this study demonstrated that two-layer wound sealing is an effective barrier not only to prevent the spread of micro-organisms but also to protect surgeons.

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.

Expression of functional TRPV1 receptor in primary culture of canine keratinocytes

The interest for the endovanilloid system and for transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) is continuously increasing, due to their involvement in inflammation, nociception and pruritus. Even if TRPV1 enrolment was highlighted in both physiological and pathological conditions, some aspects remain unclear, mostly in veterinary medicine. This study aimed to verify the expression and functionality of TRPV1 in canine keratinocytes to investigate in vitro the role of TRPV1 in these cells that are involved in different cutaneous pathologies. Keratinocytes primary cultures were isolated from bioptical samples and cultivated. Binding assay (using ³ [H]-resiniferatoxin), displacement assay (in the presence of 1.2 nM ³ [H]-resiniferatoxin) and functional assays (in the presence of 1 μCi/⁴⁵ Ca²⁺ ) with vanilloid agonists and antagonists, specifically addressed to TRPV1 receptor, were performed. Binding assay demonstrated the presence of measurable concentrations of TRPV1 (B_max  = 1,240 ± 120 fmol/mg protein; K_d  = 0.01 ± 0.004 nM). Displacement assay highlighted the highest affinity for resiniferatoxin (RTX) and 5-iodo-resiniferatoxin (5-I-RTX), among agonists and antagonists, respectively. The same compounds results as the most potent in the functional assays. This study demonstrated the identification and the characterization of TRPV1 receptor in primary canine keratinocytes cultures. The results are promising for a clinical use, but further in vivo investigations are required.

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.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN POVIDONE-IODINE AND MANUGEL 85 ON SURGICAL SCRUB

Background:

Direct transmission through skin contact is one of ways for disease transmission. Medical staffs have contact with many patients, so their hand can be a factor for the transmission of disease. Surgical scrub is a process that leads to destruction immigrant and stable microbus of hands and arms through friction washing by use of antiseptic solution prior to surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of disinfection of Povidone-Iodine and Manugel 85 in surgical scrub.

Methods:

This study was a clinical trial that done before and after Surgical scrub. 33 person of surgical team in hospital were surveyed during. Four samples were done for every person: first before surgical scrub with Povidone-Iodine solution, second immediately after surgical scrub, then after one week third test done before surgical scrub with Manugel 85, and forth one immediately after surgical scrub. Paired t-test was used for statistical analysis and SPSS analysis.

Results:

Data analysis showed that the effect of Povidone-Iodine and Manugel 85, separately, before and after surgical scrub on number of colonies is significant. But the effect of these two solutions on behalf of number of colonies was not significant. The 100% grown cultures before surgical scrub with Povidone-Iodine solution and 90.91% before surgical scrub with Manugel 85 were staphylococcus.

Conclusion:

The disinfection effect of Povidone-Iodine and Manuge l85 on surgical scrub is the same.

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

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

The Effects of Surgical Hand Scrubbing Protocols on Skin Integrity and Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize updated evidence regarding the effect of surgical-scrub techniques on skin integrity and the incidence of surgical site infections. Databases searched include the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Our review was limited to eight peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized controlled trials published in English from 1990 to 2015. Comparison models included traditional hand scrubbing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine against alcohol-based hand rubbing, scrubbing with a brush versus without a brush, and detergent-based antiseptics alone versus antiseptics incorporating alcohol solutions. Evidence showed that hand rubbing techniques are as effective as traditional scrubbing and seem to be better tolerated. Hand rubbing appears to cause less skin damage than traditional scrub protocols, and scrub personnel tolerated brushless techniques better than scrubbing using a brush.

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.

Strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Comparison of surgical hand scrub and alcohol surgical hand rub on reducing hand microbial burden

This study was performed to compare the effects of two hand decontamination methods on the microbial burden of operating room staff hands. The surgical hand washing methods compared were a traditional surgical hand scrub using a povidone iodine solution, and a social wash using a liquid non-antibacterial soap followed by the application of an alcoholic hand rub.

Surgical Hand Antisepsis–A Pilot Study comparing Povidone Iodine Hand Scrub and Alcohol-based Chlorhexidine Gluconate Hand Rub

Introduction: The surgeon uses different methods of surgical hand antisepsis with the aim of reducing surgical site infections. To date, there are no local studies comparing the efficacy of iodine hand scrub against newer alcohol-based hand rubs with active ingredients. Our pilot study compares a traditional aqueous hand scrub using 7.5% Povidone iodine (PVP-I) against a hand rub using Avagard: 61% ethyl alcohol, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate. The outcome measure is the number of Colony Forming Units (CFU) cultured from 10-digit fingertip imprints on agar plates. Materials and Methods: Ten volunteers underwent 2 hand preparation protocols, with a 30-minute interval in between–Protocol A (3-minute of aqueous scrub using PVP-I) and Protocol B (3-minute of hand rub, until dry, using Avagard). In each protocol, fingertip imprints were obtained immediately after hand preparation (t0). The volunteers proceeded to don sterile gloves and performed specific tasks (suturing). At one hour, the gloves were removed and a second set of imprints was obtained (t1). Results: Four sets of fingertip imprints were obtained. All 10 participants complied with the supervised hand preparation procedures for each protocol. CFUs of initial fingertip imprints (t0): The median CFU counts for initial imprint was significantly higher in the PVP-I treatment (median = 6, Inter Quartile Range (IQR) = 33) compared to the Avagard treatment (median = 0, IQR = 0, P <0.001). CFUs of fingertip imprint at 1 hour (t1): The median CFU counts for second imprint (t1) was significantly higher in the PVP-I treatment (median = 0.5, IQR = 11) compared to the Avagard treatment (median = 0, IQR = 0, P = 0.009). Our results suggest that the Avagard was more efficacious than aqueous PVP-I scrub at reducing baseline colony counts and sustaining this antisepsis effect. Conclusion: Alcohol hand rub with an active compound, demonstrated superior efficacy in CFU reduction. Based on our results, and those pooled from other authors, we suggest that alcohol-based hand rubs could be included in the operating theatre as an alternative to traditional surgical scrub for surgical hand antisepsis. Key words: Alcohol-based, Hand rub, Hand scrub, Surgical hand antisepsis, Surgical site infection

Eficácia de três métodos de degermação das mãos utilizando gluconato de clorexidina degermante (GCH 2%)

A degermação cirúrgica das mãos e dos antebraços é um procedimento que integra as atividades de paramentação cirúrgica como uma medida de prevenção de infecção do sítio cirúrgico. Com o advento dos princípios antissépticos degermantes, a necessidade do uso de escovas para a degermação cirúrgica tem sido questionada e recomendado o abandono deste uso devido às lesões provocadas na pele. Com a finalidade de fundamentar a eficácia da técnica da degermação cirúrgica sem o uso de escovas ou esponjas, o objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar três métodos para degermação cirúrgica utilizando a formulação degermante de gluconato de clorexidina - GCH 2%: com escova, com esponja e sem artefato. Foram avaliados 29 profissionais da saúde, utilizando o método de caldo de luva para coleta de micro-organismos antes e depois de cada método testado. As análises estatísticas comprovaram não haver diferenças estatísticas significantes na redução microbiana entre os três métodos analisados (p=0,148), o que teoricamente descarta a necessidade da continuidade do uso de escovas e esponjas para a realização da degermação das mãos.

The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations

The World Health Organization's Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care have been issued by WHO Patient Safety on 5 May 2009 on the occasion of the launch of the Save Lives: Clean Your Hands initiative. The Guidelines represent the contribution of more than 100 international experts and provide a comprehensive overview of essential aspects of hand hygiene in health care, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations, and lessons learned from testing their Advanced Draft and related implementation tools.

Surgical hand antisepsis: the evidence

For 150 years members of the surgical team have been washing their hands with solutions designed to remove micro-organisms and therefore reduce surgical site infections in patients. This article discusses the evidence surrounding aspects of surgical hand antisepsis.

Bacterial population kinetics on hands during 2 consecutive surgical hand disinfection procedures

BACKGROUND

Although consecutive surgical hand disinfections is common clinical practice, the effect on the bacterial density on hands has not been studied for all commonly used hand rubs. We studied the effect of 2 consecutive applications of hand rubs on resident bacterial hand flora.

METHODS

A propanol-based hand rub (PBHR; Sterillium) and the reference alcohol (60% n-propanol) were tested in a Latin-square design according to EN 12791. The first application of the PBHR was always for 1.5 minutes; the second application was for 1.5, 1, or 0.5 minutes. The reference alcohol was always applied for 3 minutes. Pre-values and post-values were obtained in accordance with EN 12791.

RESULTS

The first reference disinfection reduced the bacterial density by 2.87 log(10) (immediate efficacy) and 2.27 log(10) (after 3 hours). The PBHR yielded a similar reduction. Immediately after the second reference disinfection, bacterial density was reduced by 0.45 log(10). Application of the PBHR yielded greater reductions of 0.71 log(10) (after 0.5 minute), 0.79 log(10) (after 1 minute), and 1.12 log(10) (after 1.5 minutes). The difference between all treatments was not significant (P = .089; Friedman test). After 3 hours, bacterial density was further decreased by 1.11 log(10) (reference disinfection), 1.89 log(10) (PBHR, 1 minute), 1.67 log(10) (PBHR, 1.5 minutes), and 1.08 log(10) (PBHR, 0.5 minute). The difference between all treatments was significant (P = .005), but none of the short treatments with the PBHR was significantly less effective than the reference treatment (P > .05; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a simple 1.5-minute application of a well-formulated PBHR for surgical hand disinfection keeps the bacterial density as low as possible ("irreducible minimum") even in 2 consecutive surgical procedures of 3 hours.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand antisepsis, to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms, is routinely carried out before undertaking invasive procedures. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients. 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 STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (Week 5, 2007), CINAHL (June 2007), EMBASE (Week 23, 2007) and ZETOC (2005).

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 selection, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Only one trial reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, and nine trials measured numbers of CFUs. One trial involving 4387 patients found alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients were as effective as aqueous scrubs in reducing SSIs. Four trials compared different alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients with aqueous scrubs for numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found N-duopropenide more effective than chlorhexidine and povidone iodine aqueous scrubs. One trial found 45% propanol-2, 30% propanol-1 with 0.2% ethylhexadecyldimethyl ammonium ethylsulfate more effective than chlorhexidine scrubs. One trial found no difference between 1% chlorhexidine gluconate in 61% ethyl alcohol or zinc pyrithione in 70% ethyl alcohol against aqueous povidone iodine. A fourth trial found 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs more effective than chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol rubs. Four trials compared the relative effects of different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands. Three trials found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs were significantly more effective than povidone iodine scrubs. One trial found no difference between chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs and povidone iodine plus triclosan scrubs. Two trials found no evidence of a difference between alternative alcohol rubs in terms of the number of CFUs. Four trials compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found no difference after the initial scrub but found subsequent three minute scrubs using chlorhexidine significantly more effective than subsequent scrubs lasting 30 seconds. One trial found that following a one minute hand wash, a three minute rub appears to be more effective than the five minute rub using alcohol disinfectant. The other comparisons demonstrated no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol rubs used in preparation for surgery by the scrub team are as effective as aqueous scrubbing in preventing SSIs however this evidence comes from only one, equivalence, cluster trial which did not appear to adjust for clustering. Four comparisons suggest that alcohol rubs are at least as, if not more, effective than aqueous scrubs though the quality of these is mixed and each study presents a different comparison, precluding meta analysis. There is no evidence to suggest that any particular alcohol rub is better than another. Evidence from 4 studies suggests that chlorhexidine gluconate based aqueous scrubs are more effective than povidone iodine based aqueous scrubs in terms of the numbers of CFUs on the hands. There is limited evidence regarding the effects on CFUs numbers of different scrub durations. There is no evidence regarding the effect of equipment such as brushes and sponges.