Topical antiseptic mouthwash in oncological surgery of the oral cavity and oropharynx

Surgical site antiseptic preparations for otolaryngology - Head and neck surgery: A current review

OBJECTIVE

To review current literature and guidelines on antiseptic surgical site preparations for preventing surgical site infections with consideration of contraindications specific to head and neck surgery.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov, accessdata.fda.gov, Manufacturer websites.

REVIEW METHODS

A scoping review on the literature and clinical studies comparing the efficacy of different surgical site preparations. Studies were included if they were a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing at least two commonly used and available antiseptic preparations. Additionally, a compilation of warnings and contraindications from manufacturer labels and articles are included. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials concerning antiseptic preparation use in head and neck surgery specifically, an additional search was executed for articles not limited to randomized controlled trials that compared different antiseptic preparation used in surgeries concerning the head and neck.

RESULTS

Of 56,983 resulting abstracts and 3798 of them being screened, 25 RCTs were included. These RCTs included a variety of surgeries including gastrointestinal, obstetric, gynecologic, orthopedic, and vascular procedures. When searching for abstracts concerning head and neck surgeries, 9 studies were found and included.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce surgical site infections and avoid application in situations with contraindications, practicing surgeons need to be familiar with the existing literature regarding different surgical preparations and what warnings manufacturers have listed on the products. Optimal surgical site preparation for head and neck surgery is challenging as proximity to oxygen contraindicates newer alcohol-based options that are potentially flammable. We summarize evidence-based surgical site preparation for head and neck surgery.

Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) rates and bacterial load after major mucosal head and neck surgery between patients who received topical antimicrobial prophylaxis and those who did not.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 20, 2021, with cross-referencing of retrieved studies per PRISMA guidelines.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria captured clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies with infectious outcomes of adults who underwent major mucosal head and neck surgery and received perioperative topical antimicrobial therapy to the oral cavity and/or pharynx. Studies of dental procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was SSI rate, and the secondary outcome was bacterial load. Two blinded investigators screened each text.

RESULTS

Of 265 unique citations, 9 studies of 470 total patients were included. Topical treatments included numerous antibiotics and antiseptics directly applied over mucosa. Pooled SSI rates of 252 patients in the intervention cohort and 218 in the control cohort were 8% (95% CI, 3%-14%; I ² = 61.2%) and 29% (95% CI, 16%-43%; I ² = 79.5%), respectively. A meta-analysis of 7 comparative studies totaling 192 patients receiving topical therapy and 218 control patients revealed a pooled relative risk of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.68; I ² = 0.0%) in favor of the treatment group. The studies demonstrated a short-term decrease in bacterial counts after topical antimicrobial prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent prophylactic topical antimicrobial therapy had less than half the risk of developing SSI after mucosal head and neck surgery when compared with those who received no topical prophylaxis.

Pneumonia due to aspiration of povidine iodine after preoperative disinfection of the oral cavity

INTRODUCTION

Povidone-iodine (PI) is thought to be an effective disinfectant and safe for many surgeons. Aspiration pneumonia is usually caused by gastric contents, but if PI solution will be aspirated, pneumonia or other complications may occur.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of pneumonia to aspiration of PI solution in a 91-year-old man patient who underwent oral-maxillofacial surgery. When surgeons used PI solution for disinfection into the oral cavity, the solution seems to be sinking gradually. The patient showed severe respiratory distress and developed hypoxia. There were much frothy fluids into a tracheal tube. We suctioned through the endotracheal tube and performed bronchoscopy, that revealed a redness which appeared associated to a chemical injury on the left trachea and bronchus. His condition was complicated by ARDS and DIC. Periodical bronchial suction and guideline-based treatments of ARDS were carried in ICU. He recovered without severe complication.

CONCLUSION

Although PI solution for an oral disinfection is used routinely, all operators need to be aware of the risk for PI aspiration.

Preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization in head and neck surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality after head and neck surgery. Our primary objective was to determine the efficacy of preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization before head and neck surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This study was conducted among 84 patients presenting for head and neck surgery requiring admission to an academic medical center. Preoperative cultures were performed to identify Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Patients were randomized to preoperative topical antimicrobial decolonization with a 5-day regimen of chlorhexidine skin rinses and intranasal mupirocin coupled with standard perioperative systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis, versus standard prophylaxis alone. The main outcome was the incidence of SSIs.

RESULTS

Despite a trend suggesting a decrease in SSIs with perioperative topical antimicrobial decolonization (24% vs. 10%), there was no significant difference (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-1.18; P = .079). Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 vs. 1; P = .02), with more operative blood loss (P = .05), and who required operative takeback (P = .04) had a higher rate of SSIs; there was a trend suggesting a higher rate of SSIs among patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery compared to clean cases (P = .08) and among those having received prior radiation (P = .07) or chemotherapy (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative antimicrobial decolonization did not significantly decrease the incidence of SSIs after head and neck surgery, but might be considered for high-risk groups despite the lack of conclusive evidence confirming efficacy. Risk factors for SSIs after head and neck surgery are identified for the first time in a prospective study.

Selection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy

BACKGROUND

The recognition over the past 3 decades of microbial specificity in periodontitis has afforded dental practitioners the ability to prevent and treat the disease with a variety of antimicrobial drugs. These include systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics and topical antiseptics.

RESULTS

Systemic antibiotic therapy can be essential in eliminating pathogenic bacteria that invade gingival tissue and in helping control periodontal pathogens residing in various domains of the mouth from where they may translocate to periodontal sites. Frequently used periodontal combination antibiotic therapies are metronidazole-amoxicillin (250-375 mg of each 3 x daily for 8 days) and metronidazole-ciprofloxacin (500 mg of each 2 x daily for 8 days). Microbiological analysis helps determine the optimal antibiotic therapy and effectiveness of treatment. Topical antibiotics that are commercially available as controlled release devices suffer from several potential problems, including insufficient spectrum of antimicrobial activity in some periodontal polymicrobial infections, risks of producing an antibiotic resistant microbiota, and high acquisition costs. Topical antiseptics of relevance in periodontal treatment include 10% povidone-iodine placed subgingivally by a syringe for 5 min, and 0.1% sodium hypochlorite solution applied subgingivally by patients using an irrigation device.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The present paper recommends periodontal treatment that includes a battery of professionally and patient-administered antimicrobial agents (properly prescribed systemic antibiotics, povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite subgingival irrigants, and chlorhexidine mouthrinse). Available chemotherapeutics can provide effective, safe, practical and affordable means of controlling subgingival colonization of periodontal pathogens and various types of periodontal disease.

Maintenance of mouth hygiene in patients with oral cancer in the immediate post-operative period

BACKGROUND

Little has been written about mouth hygiene measures during the immediate postoperative phase in patients with oral cancer. Mouth hygiene not only involves the care and maintenance of the dentition and its related structures, but also the maintenance of surgical sites, reconstructive techniques such as free flaps and generally keeping the mouth clean, which may optimize healing potential and patient comfort. Ward conditions and novel methods of reconstruction require innovation and improvisation of routine methods of mouth and oral hygiene.

METHODS

A review of techniques of mouth hygiene used during the immediate post-operative phase by our unit over the last nine years and a review of the literature.

RESULTS

Various methods gained from our experience in treating patients with oral cancer at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre are documented. Most methods involve a combination of either chlorhexidine or normal saline mouth rinses and mechanical cleaning.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many different methods of mouth care in patients who have had resection for oral tumours. It is important for dental practitioners, hygienists and allied health professionals, who may be involved with care of such patients to have an understanding of the methods that are available and appropriate for such patients.

Inhibition of microflora associated with oral malignancy

Changes in the microflora on oral carcinoma surfaces may lead to both local and systemic infections, which may complicate the morbidity of the patient suffering from oral malignant neoplasms. Thus, anticancer therapy, irradiation, chemotherapy or surgery impairs the defence mechanism of the oral mucosa and is accompanied by proliferation of the mucosal biofilm with overgrowth of yeast and bacteria. This study investigates the inhibition of the biofilm present on the surface of oral squamous cell carcinomas. Biofilm samples were obtained from the central surface (1 cm2) of each lesion in 10 patients (eight male, two female; mean age: 47.6 years; SD +/- 7.6) before any antibiotherapy or tumour treatment. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and were rinsed with Meridol mouthrinse (amine fluoride) or placebo (saline solution) for 7 days. Samples were repeatedly taken from the same site after rinsing. Samples were transported in pre-reduced brain heart infusion broth and cultured within 1 h of removal, using aerobic and anaerobic complete and selective media. Total aerobic and anaerobic counts were determined and isolated bacteria were identified. The median counts of colony forming units (CFU/ml) after rinsing with Meridol were significantly lower for both aerobes and anaerobes than before rinsing with Meridol. (For aerobes before rinsing: 1.35 x 10(6), after rinsing: 7.55 x 10(5); p = 0.025; for anaerobes before rinsing: 1.39 x 10(6), after rinsing: 7.15 x 10(5); p = 0.011. Rinsing with placebo: no significant difference was found. Aerobe median counts before rinsing: 1.17 x 10(6), after rinsing: 1.03 x 10(5), and for anaerobes: before rinsing 1.75 x 10(6), after rinsing: 1.51 x 10(6); p > 0.05 [Wilcoxon test].) It was concluded that 7-days (three times a day) Meridol rinsing significantly reduced the surface biofilm of oral carcinoma compared to rinsing with placebo. Clinical examination indicated no irritation of the mucosa. The mouthrinse was well tolerated by the patients, who commented on a reduction in burning sensation and bad breath. Besides routine oral hygiene, rinsing itself could reduce patient morbidity. The findings of the present study indicate that in addition to any other oral focus, the lesion itself, when ulcerated, should receive direct antimicrobial treatment so as to reduce patient morbidity and enhance quality of life.