BACKGROUND: Despite many advances in surgical asepsis, surgical site infection (SSI) remains a challenging and costly problem. Decontamination of the skin with an antiseptic agent is standard practice before any trans-cutaneous invasive procedure, but the antiseptic agent of choice to best reduce the risk of SSI remains controversial. METHODS: Review of relevant literature. RESULTS: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated chlorhexidine-based and iodine-based preparation solutions, with and without an alcohol component. Most of these trials are underpowered to detect differences in SSI rates. The largest modern RCT showed that a chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol preparation reduced the risk of SSI substantially compared with a povidone-iodine preparation without alcohol in clean-contaminated surgery. Many smaller RCTs have shown that chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol is superior to povidone-iodine plus isopropyl alcohol or iodine povacrylex plus isopropyl alcohol in pre-operative skin decontamination; whether or not this translates into lower SSI rates is unknown. A mixed treatment comparison of 10 RCTs concluded that alcohol-based preparations have a 98% probability of reducing the risk of SSI more effectively than aqueous-based preparations. Non-randomized observational studies have generally found no difference in SSI rates among various skin antiseptic preparations. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-based agents are likely superior to aqueous agents. Chlorhexidine may decrease SSI rates compared with povidone-iodine, and chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol likely offers better skin decontamination before clean surgery than povidone-iodine plus isopropyl alcohol or iodine povacrylex plus isopropyl alcohol. The quality of the available data is moderate. Rigorous, well-powered RCTs with appropriate treatment comparisons are needed to establish the optimal and most cost-effective pre-operative skin preparation in various operations and wound classifications.
BACKGROUND: Despite many advances in surgical asepsis, surgical site infection (SSI) remains a challenging and costly problem. Decontamination of the skin with an antiseptic agent is standard practice before any trans-cutaneous invasive procedure, but the antiseptic agent of choice to best reduce the risk of SSI remains controversial. METHODS: Review of relevant literature. RESULTS: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated chlorhexidine-based and iodine-based preparation solutions, with and without an alcohol component. Most of these trials are underpowered to detect differences in SSI rates. The largest modern RCT showed that a chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol preparation reduced the risk of SSI substantially compared with a povidone-iodine preparation without alcohol in clean-contaminated surgery. Many smaller RCTs have shown that chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol is superior to povidone-iodine plus isopropyl alcohol or iodinepovacrylex plus isopropyl alcohol in pre-operative skin decontamination; whether or not this translates into lower SSI rates is unknown. A mixed treatment comparison of 10 RCTs concluded that alcohol-based preparations have a 98% probability of reducing the risk of SSI more effectively than aqueous-based preparations. Non-randomized observational studies have generally found no difference in SSI rates among various skin antiseptic preparations. CONCLUSIONS:Alcohol-based agents are likely superior to aqueous agents. Chlorhexidine may decrease SSI rates compared with povidone-iodine, and chlorhexidine-isopropyl alcohol likely offers better skin decontamination before clean surgery than povidone-iodine plus isopropyl alcohol or iodinepovacrylex plus isopropyl alcohol. The quality of the available data is moderate. Rigorous, well-powered RCTs with appropriate treatment comparisons are needed to establish the optimal and most cost-effective pre-operative skin preparation in various operations and wound classifications.
Authors: Brenda L Kick; Sanjeev Gumber; Heqiong Wang; Reneé H Moore; Douglas K Taylor Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Jonas D Senft; Tilman Dröscher; Philip Gath; Philip C Müller; Adrian Billeter; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Monika K Huss; Kerriann M Casey; Jing Hu; Roberta C Moorhead; Helen H Chum Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Charles E Edmiston; Philip Lavin; Maureen Spencer; Gwen Borlaug; Gary R Seabrook; David Leaper Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jan A Roth; Cyrill Schwab; Andrew Atkinson; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Kettelhack; Friedrich S Eckstein; Manuel Battegay; Steffi Klimke; Reno Frei; Andreas F Widmer Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Kivanc Atesok; Efstathios Papavassiliou; Michael J Heffernan; Danny Tunmire; Irina Sitnikov; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Sakthivel Rajaram; Jason Pittman; Ziya L Gokaslan; Alexander Vaccaro; Steven Theiss Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-01-03