Studies of the surgical scrub

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant.

RESULTS

The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

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.

Pre-surgical hand preparation in veterinary practice

The objective of this paper is to review the evidence for different methods of surgical hand preparation applicable to veterinary practice. Surgical hand preparation is an essential step in performing surgery as a veterinarian. Recommended protocols and products for surgical hand preparation have varied since its inception in the late 1800s. Many factors must be considered when assessing the efficacy, safety, and users' compliance with any available product. Traditional scrub methods employing chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine have been compared to alcohol-based rub protocols with respect to immediate and prolonged efficacy, safety, compliance, requirements for theatre furniture, cost and water usage. Although much of the comparative data has been generated in human medical facilities, extrapolation of the data to veterinary surgery is appropriate. Considerations for veterinary practice are specifically discussed. Overall, the benefits of alcohol-based rubs indicate that this should be the preferred method of pre-surgical hand preparation for veterinarians in all types of practice.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand antisepsis, to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms, is routinely carried out before undertaking invasive procedures. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (Week 5, 2007), CINAHL (June 2007), EMBASE (Week 23, 2007) and ZETOC (2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Only one trial reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, and nine trials measured numbers of CFUs. One trial involving 4387 patients found alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients were as effective as aqueous scrubs in reducing SSIs. Four trials compared different alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients with aqueous scrubs for numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found N-duopropenide more effective than chlorhexidine and povidone iodine aqueous scrubs. One trial found 45% propanol-2, 30% propanol-1 with 0.2% ethylhexadecyldimethyl ammonium ethylsulfate more effective than chlorhexidine scrubs. One trial found no difference between 1% chlorhexidine gluconate in 61% ethyl alcohol or zinc pyrithione in 70% ethyl alcohol against aqueous povidone iodine. A fourth trial found 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs more effective than chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol rubs. Four trials compared the relative effects of different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands. Three trials found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs were significantly more effective than povidone iodine scrubs. One trial found no difference between chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs and povidone iodine plus triclosan scrubs. Two trials found no evidence of a difference between alternative alcohol rubs in terms of the number of CFUs. Four trials compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found no difference after the initial scrub but found subsequent three minute scrubs using chlorhexidine significantly more effective than subsequent scrubs lasting 30 seconds. One trial found that following a one minute hand wash, a three minute rub appears to be more effective than the five minute rub using alcohol disinfectant. The other comparisons demonstrated no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol rubs used in preparation for surgery by the scrub team are as effective as aqueous scrubbing in preventing SSIs however this evidence comes from only one, equivalence, cluster trial which did not appear to adjust for clustering. Four comparisons suggest that alcohol rubs are at least as, if not more, effective than aqueous scrubs though the quality of these is mixed and each study presents a different comparison, precluding meta analysis. There is no evidence to suggest that any particular alcohol rub is better than another. Evidence from 4 studies suggests that chlorhexidine gluconate based aqueous scrubs are more effective than povidone iodine based aqueous scrubs in terms of the numbers of CFUs on the hands. There is limited evidence regarding the effects on CFUs numbers of different scrub durations. There is no evidence regarding the effect of equipment such as brushes and sponges.

Surgical hand scrubs in relation to microbial counts: systematic literature review

AIM

This paper reports a systematic review whose objective was to determine the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs in relation to bacterial growth on the hands of operating room staff members.

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for surgical hand scrubs, evidence shows that frequent and prolonged use of antiseptics and brushes may damage the skin. Consequently, lesions may appear, become more heavily colonized by microorganisms and increase the risk of transmitting infection to patients. Recommendations about surgical hand scrubs vary widely and their effectiveness in relation to microbial counts is unknown.

METHOD

A variety of healthcare databases were searched covering the period between January 1990 and December 2004. Based on selection criteria, the abstracts of studies identified were checked to determine whether they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2 software, weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

FINDINGS

Three studies were included in this review. Two studies compared the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product and a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference (weighted mean difference = -0.63, 95% confidence intervals = -0.99 to -0.27, P = 0.0006). One study compared the effectiveness of 2- and 3-minute surgical hand scrubs using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed no difference (weighted mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals = -0.13 to 0.71, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product were more effective than a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate. There is no evidence to support a 2-minute surgical hand scrub as being more effective than a 3-minute one using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate.

In-use efficacy of a chlorhexidine in alcohol surgical rub: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although full surgical scrubs are performed prior to each case on an operating list, optimum regimens for hand cleaning have yet to be determined, and in-use efficacy evaluations are very limited.

METHODS

A crossover study was undertaken comparing a chlorhexidine in detergent/alcohol regimen with povidine-iodine detergent scrub, within an orthopaedic operating environment. Depending on the skin asepsis regimen used, five surgical team members scrubbed or rubbed prior to each case for a complete operating list. Bactericidal efficacy was measured using the 'glove-juice' technique before and after hand asepsis, and at the completion of each case.

RESULTS

The chlorhexidine regimen caused substantial and sustained reductions in hand bacterial counts (>50-fold prior to case 1) during surgical cases. Application of alcoholic chlorhexidine prior to each subsequent case reduced bacterial counts to the same level as the original scrub. In contrast, the povidine-iodine scrub reduced counts <3-fold prior to the first case and <2-fold in subsequent cases. The chlorhexidine regimen also resulted in persistent bactericidal effects between cases, as counts prior to application of cases 2 and higher were significantly lower than prior to case 1 (>7-fold for case 2 vs case 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The chlorhexidine regimen demonstrated excellent bactericidal efficacy throughout an operating list, and was superior to povidine-iodine scrubbing in all aspects. The alcoholic chlorhexidine regimen is simpler and should have wide surgical application.

Handwashing and respiratory illness among young adults in military training

OBJECTIVES

In response to increasing concerns about respiratory illness in military recruits, a simple handwashing program was developed and evaluated at a large Navy training center.

METHODS

Clinical records from 1996 through 1998 were reviewed to determine weekly rates of respiratory illness before and after program implementation (1,089,800 person-weeks reviewed). A supplemental survey was given to a sample of recruits to assess self-reported respiratory illness and compliance with the handwashing program.

RESULTS

A 45% reduction in total outpatient visits for respiratory illness was observed after implementation of the handwashing program. No change was noted in hospitalization rates for respiratory illness, which remained low during the observation period. Survey data supported clinical observations, as frequent handwashers self-reported fewer respiratory illness episodes when compared to infrequent handwashers. Surveys also revealed challenges with handwashing compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a handwashing program in this population of healthy young adults was associated with a marked reduction in outpatient visits for respiratory illness. Despite its success, maintenance of the handwashing program has been challenging in the time-constrained setting of military training.

Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation

Twenty surgical staff members participated in a clinical trial to compare the microbiology and skin condition of hands when using a traditional surgical scrub (TSS) with a detergent-based antiseptic containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and a short application without scrub of a waterless hand preparation (HP) containing 61% ethyl alcohol, 1% CHG, and emollients. The HP was associated with less skin damage (P = .002) and lower microbial counts postscrub at days five (P = .002) and 19 (P = .02). The HP protocol had shorter contact time (HP mean [M] = 80.7 seconds; TSS M = 144.9 seconds; P < .0001), and more subjects preferred the HP regimen (P = .001). The HP performed better than the TSS, was less costly, and should be evaluated in larger trials and considered for widespread implementation.