F Bruyère1, P Laine2, G Saint-Jalmes2, S Malavaud3, B Pradere2. 1. Service d'Urologie, CHRU Tours, France; Université François Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France. Electronic address: f.bruyere@chu-tours.fr. 2. Service d'Urologie, CHRU Tours, France; Université François Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France. 3. Service d'Epidémiologie, Unité d'hygiène Hospitalière, 31000, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcoholic povidone-iodine (API) used as skin disinfection reduces the risk of postoperative infection but there is no evidence for its use on mucous membranes. We therefore conducted a tolerance study on the glans of men operated in urology. AIM: To confirm the safety of using API on mucous membranes. METHODS: The impact of applying API on the glans mucosa was measured using a chromameter. Caucasian men, without any dermatological lesion of the glans, operated by endoscopic transurethral route, were included. Measurements (L*a*b*) were made preoperatively and postoperatively by an independent person. Parameters were compared using the recognized formula ΔE = √(ΔL2 + Δa2 + Δb2). FINDINGS: Ninety-six patients, average age 68.9 ± 10.4 years, were included. For L*, the mean pre- and postoperative difference was +2.36 (P = 0.168). For a* and b*, the mean pre- and postoperative differences were +0.13 (P = 0.9085) and -0.12 (P = 0.17089), respectively. ΔE was equal to 13.92 ± 17.49 (non-significant difference). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to analyse the impact of API on genital mucous membranes. In our study conditions, API had no impact on the mucous membranes, suggesting that it can be used safely.
BACKGROUND: Alcoholic povidone-iodine (API) used as skin disinfection reduces the risk of postoperative infection but there is no evidence for its use on mucous membranes. We therefore conducted a tolerance study on the glans of men operated in urology. AIM: To confirm the safety of using API on mucous membranes. METHODS: The impact of applying API on the glans mucosa was measured using a chromameter. Caucasian men, without any dermatological lesion of the glans, operated by endoscopic transurethral route, were included. Measurements (L*a*b*) were made preoperatively and postoperatively by an independent person. Parameters were compared using the recognized formula ΔE = √(ΔL2 + Δa2 + Δb2). FINDINGS: Ninety-six patients, average age 68.9 ± 10.4 years, were included. For L*, the mean pre- and postoperative difference was +2.36 (P = 0.168). For a* and b*, the mean pre- and postoperative differences were +0.13 (P = 0.9085) and -0.12 (P = 0.17089), respectively. ΔE was equal to 13.92 ± 17.49 (non-significant difference). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to analyse the impact of API on genital mucous membranes. In our study conditions, API had no impact on the mucous membranes, suggesting that it can be used safely.