Improving aseptic injection standards in aesthetic clinical practice

Evaluation of the role of povidone‑iodine in the prevention of surgical site infections

Background

The occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) is associated with increased risk of mortality, development of other infections, and the need for reintervention, posing a significant health burden. The aim of this review was to examine the current data and guidelines around the use of antiseptic povidone‑iodine (PVP-I) for the prevention of SSIs at each stage of surgical intervention.

Methods

A literature search for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise.

Results

Scientific evidence demonstrates that PVP-I can be used at every stage of surgical intervention: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. PVP-I is one of the most widely used antiseptics on healthy skin and mucous membranes for preoperative surgical site preparation and is associated with a low SSI rate. For intraoperative irrigation, aqueous PVP-I is the recommended agent and has been demonstrated to decrease SSIs in a range of surgical settings, and for postoperative wound healing, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of PVP-I.

Conclusions

There is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation. The use of a single agent (PVP-I) at each stage of surgical intervention could potentially provide advantages, including economic benefits, over agents that can only be used at discrete stages of the surgical procedure.

Key message

Evidence supports the use of PVP-I at all stages of surgical intervention, from preoperative measures (including skin preparation, preoperative washing, and nasal decolonization) to intraoperative irrigation, through to postoperative wound management. However, there is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation.

Improving aseptic injection standards in aesthetic clinical practice

The rise in popularity and demand for nonsurgical injectable aesthetic procedures is inherently accompanied by an increase in reported complications, particularly those related to infection. Aseptic technique is under the control of aesthetic practitioners and can be modified to minimize the potential for cross-contamination and infection. This should be a key consideration during all clinical procedures, particularly those involving breach of the skin's natural defenses and the use of soft tissue filler. A consensus group of five UK expert aesthetic clinicians were convened to discuss current best practice for aseptic techniques in medical aesthetics. The aim of the consensus group was to recommend a step-by-step procedure to achieve optimal aseptic practice in private clinics, and define important considerations for reducing infection risk during the whole patient journey: pre-, during- and postaesthetic procedure. Recommendations were based on current evidence and extensive clinical experience. Various procedure recommendations were made to achieve and maintain a high standard of asepsis and infection control. Guidance was divided into three phases for patients and health care professionals, covering preprocedure (including patient selection), during-procedure, and postprocedure considerations. Although adherence to standard hospital guidance on handwashing and cleanliness measures is a cornerstone of controlling cross-contamination, aesthetic clinics carry a high potential risk of infection-particularly as popular treatments with dermal fillers primarily involve the face. This expert consensus guidance recommends procedures to mitigate the potential risks of asepsis.