Comparison of Postoperative Infection Rates After Office-based Oculoplastic Procedures Using Sterile and Clean Gloves

Aseptic versus clean technique during wound management? Systematic review with meta-analysis

The management of wounds by health professionals usually involves aseptic technique. An alternative is the use of clean techniques where the risk of infection is minimised but use of non-sterile materials is considered permissible. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares these two approaches. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low. The random-effects relative risk of infection for clean dressings rather than aseptic dressings was 0.86 (95% CI 0.67, 1.12). There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity, although the small number of infections in either group resulted in wide confidence intervals. The 95% prediction interval for future studies was 0.63, 1.18. There was therefore no evidence showing inferiority of clean techniques compared to aseptic methods. Before clinical studies are undertaken with higher risk procedures, laboratory simulations should explore safety by investigating the potential for pathogen transmission at each stage in the dressing procedure.

Sterile vs Nonsterile Gloves for the Repair of Wounds and Lacerations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis discusses use of sterile vs nonsterile gloves for the repair of wounds and lacerations.