Skin antisepsis in invasive procedures

Vertebral augmentation: How we do it

Vertebral augmentation consists of minimally invasive techniques indicated in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). These compression fractures cause vertebral body height loss and consequent significant pain and are most frequently the result of osteoporosis, cancer metastasis, or trauma. The deleterious effects of VCFs often compound, as greater load-bearing stress is transferred to the remaining healthy vertebrae. Kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, and intravertebral implants are closely related vertebral augmentation techniques that serve to relieve pain and to counter pathophysiological stress and structural degradation of the vertebral column alignment. All 3 approaches are performed percutaneously and are therefore attractive options for patients deemed to be poor candidates for open surgery. Each technique involves transpedicular needle access to the vertebral body matrix, followed by introduction of a cement-like polymer through a catheter to fill the space and provide structural fortification. Vertebroplasty involves injection of the cement material into the matrix space without any adjunctive measures. In kyphoplasty, a balloon is first introduced to expand the collapsed, fractured area with the goal of approximating the prefracture anatomy of the vertebral body and thereby spinal curvature, promptly followed by cement introduction. In intravertebral implantation procedures, a permanent jack is inserted into the vertebral body matrix and expanded craniocaudally, with the same purpose of restoring normal structure, before the matrix space is filled with cement polymer. This article provides an overview of these vertebral augmentation techniques, including pre and postprocedural considerations, with an emphasis on the technical aspects of the interventions.

Alcohol (70%) versus alcoholic chlorhexidine solution (0.5%) in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

to compare the use of 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks.

METHOD

this is a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial, with two parallel arms. Seventy patients who were candidates for neuraxial block were randomly allocated to group A (n = 35), in whom antisepsis was performed with 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine, or to group B (n = 35), in whom we used 70% hydrated ethyl alcohol. Swabs were harvested for culture at three times: before antisepsis, two minutes after application of the antiseptic, and immediately after puncture. The samples were sown in three culture media and the number of colony forming units (CFU) per cm² was counted.

RESULTS

there was no difference between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, time to perform the block or type of block. There were no differences between groups in the CFU/cm² counts before antisepsis. There was less bacterial growth in group B two minutes after application of the antiseptic (p = 0.048), but there was no difference between the groups regarding the number of CFU/cm² at the end of the puncture.

CONCLUSION

70% alcohol was more effective in reducing the number of CFU/cm² after two minutes, and there was no difference between the two groups regarding skin colonization at the end of the procedure. These results suggest that 70% alcohol may be an option for skin antisepsis before neuraxial blocks. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02833376.