Literature DB >> 16979793

Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital.

C Gupta1, A M Czubatyj, L E Briski, A K Malani.   

Abstract

The antiseptic effectiveness and acceptability of a commercial alcohol-based waterless (ABWL) and an alcohol-based water-aided (ABWA) scrub solution were compared with a brush-based iodine solution (BBIS) under conditions encountered in community hospital operating rooms. This randomized partially blinded study was based on guidelines from the American Society for Testing and Methods. The three scrub solutions were compared for antimicrobial efficacy, using criteria within the Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Products (FDA-TFM), and for participants' acceptance of the products. Volunteer surgical staff that worked daily in the same operating room for the entire duration of the study were enrolled. In total, 1126 surgical scrub procedures were performed over the duration of the study. Only the ABWL met all of the FDA-TFM criteria. The BBIS performed better than both of the alcohol-based solutions at the end of Day 1 (P=0.03), but the ABWL was more efficacious than the ABWA and the BBIS at the end of Days 2 and 5 (P=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). When colony-count reductions were compared over the entire duration of the study, there was no significant difference between the three solutions (P=0.2). The participants found the ABWL easiest to use (P<0.001), with the fewest adverse effects on skin (P=0.007), and it was their preferred product (P<0.001). Although both of the commercially available alcohol-based solutions may be considered as acceptable alternatives to the BBIS for presurgical antisepsis, the ABWL was found to have significantly higher user acceptability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16979793     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.06.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hosp Infect        ISSN: 0195-6701            Impact factor:   3.926


  7 in total

1.  Reducing surgical site infections: a review.

Authors:  David E Reichman; James A Greenberg
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009

2.  Association Between Eliminating Water From Surgical Hand Antisepsis at a Large Ophthalmic Surgical Hospital and Cost.

Authors:  Matthew J Javitt; Adriana Grossman; Alana Grajewski; Jonathan C Javitt
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 7.389

3.  Comparison of Aqueous and Alcohol-based Agents for Presurgical Skin Preparation Methods in Mice.

Authors:  Jacquelyn M Del Valle; Elizabeth A Fisk; Erica L Noland; Daewoo Pak; Jingyi Zhang; Marcus J Crim; Frank R Lawrence; F Claire Hankenson
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Using Waterless Alcohol-based Antiseptic for Skin Preparation and Active Thermal Support in Laboratory Rats.

Authors:  F Claire Hankenson; Joshua J Kim; Thien M Le; Frank R Lawrence; Jacquelyn M Del Valle
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 1.232

5.  A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN POVIDONE-IODINE AND MANUGEL 85 ON SURGICAL SCRUB.

Authors:  Bahar Seifi; Faezeh Sahbaei; Mohamad Zare Zare; Azam Abdoli; Mohammad Heidari
Journal:  Mater Sociomed       Date:  2016-10-17

6.  Surgical hand hygiene and febrile urinary tract infections in endourological surgery: a single-centre prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Rei Unno; Kazumi Taguchi; Yasuhiro Fujii; Naoko Unno; Shuzo Hamamoto; Ryosuke Ando; Akihiro Nakane; Atsushi Okada; Hiroyuki Kamiya; Takahiro Yasui
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection.

Authors:  Judith Tanner; Jo C Dumville; Gill Norman; Mathew Fortnam
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.