Surgical hand hygiene: scrub or rub?

Hygiene practices and antibiotic resistance among dental and medical students: a comparative study

PURPOSE

Healthcare students' hand and smartphone hygiene is critical due to potential pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant bacteria transmission. This study evaluates hygiene practices in medical and dental students at Kuwait University, exploring antibiotic resistance gene prevalence.

METHODS

Swab samples were collected from the hands and smartphones of 32 medical and 30 dental students. These samples were cultured on Columbia Blood Agar and McConkey Agar plates to quantify bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs). The extracted DNA from these colonies underwent RT-PCR to identify antibiotic resistance genes, including tem-1, shv, blaZ, and mecA. Additionally, a questionnaire addressing hygiene practices was distributed post-sample collection.

RESULTS

Medical students exhibited more frequent hand hygiene compared to dental students (P ≤ 0.0001). Although significantly fewer bacterial CFUs were found on medical students' smartphones (mean = 35 ± 53) than dental students' (mean = 89 ± 129) (P ≤ 0.05), no significant differences were observed in CFU counts on their hands (medical: mean = 17 ± 37; dental: mean = 96 ± 229). Detection of at least one of the targeted antibiotic resistance genes on medical (89% hands, 52% smartphones) and dental students' (79% hands, 63% smartphones) was not statistically significant. However, the prevalence of two genes, tem-1 and shv, was significantly higher on medical students' hands (78% and 65%, respectively) than on dental students' hands (32% and 28%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Clinically significant prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes were found on medical and dental students' hands and smartphones, emphasizing the importance of ongoing education regarding hand hygiene and smartphone disinfection. This continuous reinforcement in the curriculum is crucial to minimizing the risk of cross-contamination.

Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Potassium Sorbate Rub Strengthens the Effectiveness of Traditional Hand Scrubbing and Improves Long-Lasting Effectiveness-Evaluation of Hand Preparation Protocols According to EN 12791

Despite the advantages of surgical handrub in terms of the ease of application and effectiveness, chlorhexidine (CHG)-based hand scrubbing remains the preferred method for surgical hand preparation. However, it does not systematically meet the non-inferiority requirement of the European norm (EN) 12791 with respect to n-propanol (the reference product) and does not provide the sustained efficacy expected for these long-lasting agents. Commercially available alcohol-based products have also failed to demonstrate sustained efficacy according to EN 12791. Multi-step protocols enhance the efficacy of hand scrubbing, yet their extended disinfection duration might diminish their allure for healthcare professionals. In this study, we show that hand scrubbing with CHG 4% followed by a 1 min rubbing with the novel formulation of ethanol (Et) 70%/CHG 3% plus 0.3% potassium sorbate food additive (PS) meets the non-inferiority requirement and demonstrates sustained efficacy when tested according to EN 12791. The immediate and 3 h effect of this protocol was significantly higher than that of n-propanol and the homologous disinfection protocol without PS (CHG 4% hand scrub plus Et 70%/CHG 3% rub), demonstrating that the inclusion of PS confers a notable residual effect. We speculate that this non-volatile ingredient acts synergistically with CHG. This promising combination represents an alternative method for the development of new disinfection strategies.

A new checklist surgical hand scrub to replace time-based methods - A pixel intensity analysis

BACKGROUND

Hand scrubbing is an absolute precaution to avoid surgical site infections. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 4-min overall scrubbing (4MS) for surgical hand hygiene. However, we hypothesize that the more methodical 10-stroke counting technique (10SS) via locational partitioning of the arm is superior to WHO's superficial guideline dictating only the duration.

PURPOSE

The mechanical efficiency of 4MS and 10SS techniques are compared.

METHODS

24 healthcare professionals were recruited for the study. A novel methodology was devised to quantify the average brightness change of skin-applied UV ink before and after scrubbing via pixel intensity analysis. A black-box setup is constructed with an integrated high-resolution camera to photograph the UV-stained dorsal arm. Each stain was then digitally isolated for brightness comparison.

RESULTS

It was observed that the 10SS technique was overall more successful in removing the UV ink in comparison to the 4MS method (p = 0.014). In addition, a bias was observed in removing more percentage of the proximal stains when compared to middle and distal stains with the 4MS technique (p = 0.0027), while location-based brightness change averages were statistically equal with the 10SS technique (p = 0.423).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

10SS provided not only a more mechanically efficient scrubbing but also a more homogenous cleaning than 4MS. We recommend the use of the 10SS technique to achieve more effective pre-surgical hand hygiene.

Sustainable Hand Surgery: Incorporating Water Efficiency Into Clinical Practice

Introduction Public health and well-being outcomes are intimately connected with the health of our planet. Climate change has numerous far-reaching effects. Managing and mitigating these risks to human health presents one of the next challenges to global healthcare. The current usage of planetary resources is unsustainable. Surgical procedures are particularly resource-intensive, often utilising vast amounts of single-use consumables, like water. In the last 100 years global usage of fresh water has increased six-fold and continues to rise by 1% year on year. It is well established that initial hand sterilization and maintenance of hand sterility during the surgical list are essential for preventing hospital-acquired infections and associated morbidity and mortality. This study aims to estimate the current daily water usage of two typical hand surgery lists from a District General Hospital in North Wales, to determine potential water savings by switching exclusively to an alcohol-based hand rub for subsequent scrubs, in line with current national guidelines. Methods Observational study estimation of water consumption from a temperature-controlled manual tap required using a 1 litre volumetric jug where the time taken to fill was recorded. Three separate observational samples were taken, and a mean was calculated. This mean determined the amount of water dispensed from the tap in a standard 3 min scrub and subsequent 1 min scrub. Two different theatre schedules were analysed: 1. A trauma list (five cases) and 2. A higher volume minor elective procedure schedule (16 cases), in this case a wide-awake local anaesthetic no tourniquet (WALANT) carpal tunnel release (CTR). Results Each case regardless of procedure had approximately three persons scrubbed. 20.57L of water is used for one person to scrub for 3 mins and an extra 6.8574L for each subsequent 1 min scrub. Therefore, current daily water consumption could reach 143.99L during the major hand trauma list and 411.4L during a high-volume carpal tunnel release list. Conclusion Simply following current guidelines by switching to alcohol-based hand rub just for subsequent scrubs could reduce water consumption by 57.2% for hand trauma lists and 70.2% for high-volume CTR lists.

Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery

Aims

In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery.

Methods

A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”.

Results

A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training.

Conclusion

Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640.

Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of 4 surgical hand-preparation procedures prior to application of an alcohol-based hand rub in veterinary students

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of skin preparations before application of an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) on bacterial counts before and after elective surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical prospective study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Veterinary students (n = 103) performing ovariohysterectomies on 140 dogs.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 initial surgical preparation on the day of surgery: A - hand preparation with medicated solution (4% w/v chlorhexidine bigluconate followed by an ABHR; B - application of a medication solution (benzalkonium chloride 0.1%-1% and polymeric biguanide hydrochloride 0.01%-0.1%) followed by an ABHR; C - nonmedicated pH-neutral soap hand wash followed by ABHR, and D - direct application of an ABHR. Samples were taken by pressing the distal finger tips to an agar plate before the hand preparation, after the hand preparation (n = 3), after ABHR application, and 120 minutes later. Colony-forming units (CFUs) for samples were determined. Total log CFU and CFU log10 reduction were calculated and used for comparison with P < .05.

RESULTS

Two hours after surgery commenced, the participants of groups that performed a hand preparation had lower total CFUs than those that did not perform a hand preparation (P = .001). In particular, the number of CFUs was lower when ABHR was performed after application of pHN compared to direct ABHR (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

In this population, performing a hand preparation with pHN prior to applying an ABHR had better antimicrobial effect for the duration of surgery than not performing a hand preparation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Surgeons should wash their hands prior to ABHR before starting their first surgery of the day, even when hands appear clean.

Comparing rubbing and scrubbing surgical hand antisepsis with propan-1-ol 60% in accordance with European regulation UNE-EN 12791:2016+A1:2018

A crossover trial was conducted to compare hand rub and hand scrub-brush methods for reducing bacterial loads when using propan-1-ol-60% according to European regulations. Both methods significantly reduced the bacterial load immediately after antisepsis, but only the hand rub method achieved significant bacterial load reduction 3 hours after the procedure.

Design, Fabrication, and Testing of a Novel Surgical Handwashing Machine

Background. Surgical hand scrub is strongly recommended as an essential measure to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs). SSI results in morbidity and additional cost. Micropunctures may occur on surgical gloves during operation, thus hand scrub cannot be omitted in any condition. Generally speaking, the adequacy of hand scrub is decided by the surgeon. Only occasionally, surveillance of hygienic status of hands is performed after scrub. Therefore, the potential exists that suboptimal handwash leads to SSIs. There are standards for preoperative handwash, but all of them are operator dependent, and continuous surveillance is actually impossible. One solution is to omit the role of surgeon in handwashing. This can be achieved by designing a standard procedure, performed mechanically by a machine, considering the detailed requirements of hygienic surgical hand scrub. The goal of this study was to develop a procedure that works on the design, fabrication, and trial of a new handwashing machine, for surgical hand scrub. Methods. A machine with a reciprocal spraying mechanism was designed that covers from the fingertips up to the elbow. Various combinations of staged irrigations with antiseptic solutions and water were to be programmed and implemented. Clinical experiments were performed several times with different handwashing programs, and swabs were taken from the skin surface and creases. Results. There was no microbial growth after 72 hours with any handwashing program. Conclusion. The preliminary experiments with this new handwashing machine show promising results for its application in surgical hand scrub.

Surgical hand rubbing versus surgical hand scrubbing: Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand rubbing (SHR) and surgical hand scrubbing (SHS) are two common methods used by surgeons to reduce surgical site infections. To date, the optimal method that can effectively reduce these infections remains unknown. In this study, we performed a comprehensive statistical analysis to compare the efficacy of these two methods in effectively controlling surgical site infections.

METHODS

A systemic review and meta-analysis was performed by mining literature from major databases, including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Ovid and Google Scholar, and recruiting studies published between 1980 and 1st April 2019. Analysis was performed using Revman, version 5.3, software, and focused on primary outcomes that included colony-forming unit (CFU) counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and after surgery.

RESULTS

Seven clinical trials met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 764 healthcare workers analyzed. We found no statistically significant differences between the two methods with regards to CFU counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and surgery, as well as antisepsis and surgery times.

CONCLUSION

From the literature, it was evident that SHR had similar efficacy to SHS, without necessarily increasing costs. Owing to advantages such as ease of application, exposure to less dermal irritation, and less time consumption, SHR is recommended as a cost-effective alternative for management of surgical site infections.

Actualidades en la higiene de manos quirúrgica. Revisión de la literatura

Introducción: La higiene de manos quirúrgica, procedimiento esencial en cirugía; es una técnica que ha evolucionado y se ha ido actualizando tras el surgimiento de evidencia científica. El manual de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) publicado hace diez años es uno de los documentos que plasman cambios de esta técnica, como dejar de usar el cepillo. Sin embargo, es necesario analizar la evidencia actual con la finalidad de reconocer las nuevas tendencias de acuerdo con los resultados de las investigaciones publicadas. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión actualizada de la literatura sobre la higiene de manos quirúrgica. Desarrollo: El lavado de manos quirúrgico con cepillo es un procedimiento que se realiza en la mayoría de las instituciones hospitalarias de México; pocas han incursionado en la técnica en la que se omite el uso de cepillo. Existen diversos estudios que sustentan que el uso de cepillos debe ser erradicado debido al daño tisular que estos ocasionan. La abrasión dérmica provocada por el uso de cepillos origina que el personal se cepille las superficies de las manos y brazos por menos tiempo que el recomendado y esto a su vez impide un efecto idóneo por parte de los antisépticos. Las sustancias más recomendadas son la clorhexidina y las soluciones a base de alcohol. Conclusiones: La higiene de manos quirúrgica sin cepillo debe ser considerada debido a que disminuye costos hospitalarios, garantiza la efectividad de la descontaminación de manos, ocasiona menos lesiones dérmicas y contribuye a la reducción de las infecciones relacionadas al sitio quirúrgico.

Comparison of hydroalcoholic rubbing and conventional chlorhexidine scrubbing for aseptic skin preparation in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To compare preparation time, ease of application, and elimination of skin contamination of 3 skin preparation methods for asepsis.

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental study.

ANIMALS

Healthy dogs (n = 6) with no clinical signs of skin disease.

METHODS

Three sites on each dog were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 preparation protocols for asepsis: (1) 5 scrubbings with chlorhexidine gluconate and rinsing (CHXG), (2) washing with mild soap prior to 3 rubbings with hydroalcoholic solution (soap-HAR), or (3) 3 rubbings with hydroalcoholic solution (HAR). The duration of each method of skin preparation was recorded. A Count-Tact agar plate was placed in the center of each site before, immediately after, 1 hour after, and 3 hours after antiseptic application. Plates were cultured, and colony forming units (CFU) were counted.

RESULTS

Skin preparation lasted an average of 375 seconds for CHXG, 240 seconds for soap-HAR, and 190 seconds for HAR (P = .00049). Nine CFU (median) were cultured from the skin prior to preparation, with no difference between sites on any animal or for any method. Colony forming units were not detected at any time on any site in any dog after antiseptic application.

CONCLUSION

Rubbing with hydroalcoholic (HA) solution was as effective as CHXG and prevented bacterial growth for at least 3 hours under these experimental conditions. Rubbing with hydroalcoholic solution was also faster and easier to perform.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Because there is currently no known resistance to HA solution, preparation of the surgical site with HAR should be considered to prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine as well as potential cross-resistances to antibiotics. Transfer to clinical animals requires additional investigation.

Adaptive bacterial response to low level chlorhexidine exposure and its implications for hand hygiene

Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) is commonly used in healthcare, e.g. in skin antiseptics, antimicrobial soaps, alcohol-based hand rubs and oral or wound antiseptics. Aim of the literature review was to evaluate the potential of bacteria to adapt to low level CHG exposure. A maximum 4fold MIC increase to CHG was found after low level exposure in most of the 71 evaluated bacterial species. A strong adaptive mostly stable MIC change was described in strains or isolates of the healthcare-associated species E. coli, S. marcescens and P. aeruginosa (up to 500fold, 128fold or 32fold, respectively). The highest MIC values after adaptation were 2,048 mg/l (S. marcescens) and 1,024 mg/l (P. aeruginosa). A new resistance to tetracycline, gentamicin, meropeneme or triclosan was found in some adapted isolates. In E. coli horizontal gene transfer was induced (sulfonamide resistance by conjugation), pointing out an additional risk of sublethal CHG. The use of CHG in patient care - but also all other settings such as consumer products and households - should therefore be critically assessed and restricted to indications with a proven health benefit or justifiable public health benefits. Additional CHG has no health benefit when used in alcohol-based hand rubs and is not recommended by the WHO. For routine hand washing of soiled hands the use of plain soap is sufficient, CHG in soaps has no health benefit. In surgical hand antisepsis alcohol-based hand rubs should be preferred to CHG soaps. Implementation of these principles will help to reduce avoidable selection pressure.

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.

Alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: translating scientific evidence into clinical practice

Background

Although alcohol-based surgical hand preparation offers potential advantages over the traditional surgical scrubbing technique, implementing it may be challenging due to resistance of surgeons in changing their practice. We aimed to implement alcohol-based surgical hand preparation in the hospital setting evaluating the impact of that on the quality and duration of the procedure, as well as on the prevention of surgical site infections.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study conducted at a tertiary-care university hospital from April 01 to November 01, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedic surgical teams (n = 56) and patients operated by them (n = 231). Intervention consisted of making alcohol-based handrub available in the operating room, convincing and training surgical teams for using it, promoting direct observation of surgical hand preparation, and providing aggregated feedback on the quality of the preparation. The primary study outcome was the quality of the surgical hand preparation, inferred by the compliance with each one of the steps predicted in the World Health Organization (WHO) technique, evaluated through direct observation. Secondary study outcome was the patient’s individual probability of developing surgical site infection in both study periods. We used the Wilcoxon for paired samples and McNemar’s test to assess the primary study outcome and we build a logistic regression model to assess the secondary outcome.

Results

We observed 534 surgical hand preparation events. Among 33 participants with full data available for both study periods, we observed full compliance with all the steps predicted in the WHO technique in 0.03% (1/33) of them in the pre-intervention period and in 36.36% (12/33) of them in the intervention period (OR:12.0, 95% CI: 2. 4-59.2, p = 0.002). Compared to the pre-intervention period, the intervention reduced the duration of the preparation (4.8 min vs 2.7 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The individual risk of developing a surgical site infection did not significantly change between the pre-intervention and the intervention phase (Adjusted RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0. 16-2.70, p = 0.563).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that, when compared to the traditional surgical scrub, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation improves the quality and reduces the duration of the preparation, being at least equally effective for the prevention of surgical site infections.

Quality of surgical scrub in a heart hospital: Do not take it for granted

Introduction: The role of scrub in the prevention of post-surgery infections is well-known. This study aimed to investigate the inputs and process of surgical scrub in operating rooms of the largest heart hospital of northwest Iran.

Methods: This study took place with a before-after design as a clinical audit in 2014. A check list developed based on national and international standards of surgical hand scrub was used as the study instrument. Checklists were completed by observation of surgical team scrubbing in real situation. Descriptive statistics and graphs were used to describe the results.

Results: A compliance degree with the standards for prerequisites, equipment, general items, process and time of scrub was observed as 58%, 55%, 33%, 68% and 22%, respectively. The compliance degree after the intervention was 72%, 66%, 66%, 85% and 61%, respectively. Improvement was observed in all studied aspects of scrub. The total score of compliance with the standards changed from 47% to 70%. The main issues were incorrect order of scrubbing the areas of the hands, incorrect way of scrubbing the arms, insufficient scrubbing the arms (not above elbow), and lack of awareness about hospital’s policy on scrub time.

Conclusion: The results showed defects in the surgical scrub of the studied hospital and that the compliance with the standards can be improved by simple interventions. Periodical audit and observation of the scrub and then feedback is recommended.

Chlorhexidine is not an essential component in alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: a comparative study of two handrubs based on a modified EN 12791 test protocol

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand preparation is an essential part of modern surgery. Both alcohol-based and antiseptic detergent-based hand preparation are recommended practices, with a trend towards use of alcohol based handrubs. However, discussion has arisen whether chlorhexidine is a required ingredient in highly efficacious alcohol-based formulations, in view of providing sustained antimicrobial efficacy.

METHODS

One alcohol-only formulation (product A), containing ethanol and n-propanol, and one formulation containing a chlorhexidine-ethanol combination (product B) were directly compared with each other using a modified test protocol based on European standard EN 12791 (2016) with 25 volunteers. The alcohol-only formulation (product A) was applied for only 90 s, the chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation (product B) for 180 s. Microbial log reduction factors were determined and statistically compared immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves.

RESULTS

The alcohol-only formulation (product A) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.96 ± 1.06 immediately after application and 1.67 ± 0.71 after 6 h. The chlorhexidine-alcohol combination (product B) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.42 ± 0.79 and 1.24 ± 0.90 immediately and after 6 h, respectively. The values for product A were significantly greater than those for product B at both measured time points (p ≤ 0.025 immediately after application and p ≤ 0.01 after 6 h).

CONCLUSIONS

An optimized alcohol-only formulation tested according to a modified EN 12791 protocol in 25 healthy volunteers outperformed a chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation both immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves, despite a much shorter application time. Thus, optimized alcohol-only formulations do not require chlorhexidine to achieve potent immediate and sustained efficacy. In conclusion, chlorhexidine is not an essential component for alcohol-based surgical hand preparation.

Use of Chlorhexidine Preparations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic because of its rapid and persistent action. It is well tolerated and available in different formulations at various concentrations. Chlorhexidine can be used for pre-operative skin cleansing, surgical site preparation, hand antisepsis of the surgical team and intra-articular irrigation of infected joints. The optimal intra-articular concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate in irrigation solution is 2%, to provide a persistent decrease in biofilm formation, though cytotoxicity might be an issue. Although chlorhexidine is relatively cheap, routine use of chlorhexidine without evidence of clear benefits can lead to unnecessary costs, adverse effects and even emergence of resistance. This review focuses on the current applications of various chlorhexidine formulations in TJA. As the treatment of PJI is challenging and expensive, effective preparations of chlorhexidine could help in the prevention and control of PJI.

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

Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students

OBJECTIVE

To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

STUDY POPULATION

Third year veterinary students (n=45).

METHODS

The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively.

RESULTS

After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups.

CONCLUSION

In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.

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.

Infection after hand surgery

Postoperative infections are uncommon after hand surgery. Infection can delay recovery and contribute to scarring and stiffness. Measures intended to reduce the risk of infection after hand surgery include hand washing, skin preparation, sterile technique, and prophylactic antibiotics. The role of prophylactic antibiotics for small, clean, elective hand surgery procedures lasting less than 2 hours is debated.

Fighting surgical site infections in small animals: are we getting anywhere?

A diverse array of pathogen-related, patient-related, and caretaker-related issues influence risk and prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs). The entire surgical team involved in health care settings in which surgical procedures are performed play a pivotal role in the prevention of SSIs. In this article, current knowledge of SSI risk factors and prevention methods is reviewed. Although new avenues that can be explored in the prevention of SSIs in veterinary medicine are described, the main conclusion drawn is that the best method for prevention of SSI is to adhere to what we already know.