Mitsuru Asukai1, Tsuyoshi Ohishi2, Tomotada Fujita2, Daisuke Suzuki2, Tatsuya Nishida2, Kaori Sugiura2, Yukihiro Matsuyama3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Enshu Hospital, 1-1-1 Chuo, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 430-0929, Japan. Electronic address: mitsuruasukai@gmal.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Enshu Hospital, 1-1-1 Chuo, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 430-0929, Japan. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Olanexidine gluconate (OLG) is a newly developed skin antiseptic, which is effective against a broad range of bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bactericidal efficacy and safety of OLG in orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 1103 patients who underwent clean orthopaedic surgery. They were divided into two groups: 556 patients who were treated with OLG (OLG group), and 547 patients who were treated with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) (PVP-I group). The efficacy and the safety outcomes were measured as the rate of surgical-site infection (SSI) within 30 days after surgery and the rate of adverse skin reaction, respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the OLG group and PVP-I group (1.80% vs. 2.38%; p = 0.50) based on the overall rate of SSI. Also, there was no significant difference in both superficial incisional infections (1.08% vs. 2.01%; p = 0.21) and deep incisional infections (0.72% vs. 0.37%; p = 0.35). The overall rate of adverse skin reaction was significantly higher in the OLG group than in the PVP-I group (2.16% vs. 0.73%; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrated that OLG has an efficacy similar to PVP-I in preventing SSI in clean orthopaedic surgery. However, adverse skin reactions at the application site of OLG requires more attention.
BACKGROUND:Olanexidine gluconate (OLG) is a newly developed skin antiseptic, which is effective against a broad range of bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bactericidal efficacy and safety of OLG in orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 1103 patients who underwent clean orthopaedic surgery. They were divided into two groups: 556 patients who were treated with OLG (OLG group), and 547 patients who were treated with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) (PVP-I group). The efficacy and the safety outcomes were measured as the rate of surgical-site infection (SSI) within 30 days after surgery and the rate of adverse skin reaction, respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the OLG group and PVP-I group (1.80% vs. 2.38%; p = 0.50) based on the overall rate of SSI. Also, there was no significant difference in both superficial incisional infections (1.08% vs. 2.01%; p = 0.21) and deep incisional infections (0.72% vs. 0.37%; p = 0.35). The overall rate of adverse skin reaction was significantly higher in the OLG group than in the PVP-I group (2.16% vs. 0.73%; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrated that OLG has an efficacy similar to PVP-I in preventing SSI in clean orthopaedic surgery. However, adverse skin reactions at the application site of OLG requires more attention.