OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of a skin protectant on surgical scrub and glove integrity. DESIGN:Forty-nine healthy adult volunteers were assigned (12 subjects per group) to apply a protective foam (DermaMed; Benchmark Enterprises, Salt Lake City, Utah) in conjunction with surgical scrub in one of the following formulations: 70% isopropyl alcohol, a liquid detergent base containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, a liquid detergent base containing 7.5% povidone-iodine, or a nonantimicrobial liquid soap (control). According to a standard protocol, subjects performed a surgical scrub on 3 days (every other day). Foam was applied after surgical scrub on day 1 and before surgical scrub on day 3. No foam was applied on day 2. Subjects were gloved for 2 hours after surgical scrub. SETTING: Laboratory setting. RESULTS: On all test days, there were significant differences in bacterial reduction by products (chlorhexidine gluconate or alcohol > povidone-iodine > control). When controlling for baseline counts and products used, there were no significant differences in colony-forming unit counts on hands with or without foam immediately after scrubbing or at 2 hours after scrub on gloved or ungloved hands, nor were there differences in glove leakage rates when foam was on hands. CONCLUSIONS: Such protectants can be used without detrimental effects to scrub effectiveness or glove integrity.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of a skin protectant on surgical scrub and glove integrity. DESIGN: Forty-nine healthy adult volunteers were assigned (12 subjects per group) to apply a protective foam (DermaMed; Benchmark Enterprises, Salt Lake City, Utah) in conjunction with surgical scrub in one of the following formulations: 70% isopropyl alcohol, a liquid detergent base containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, a liquid detergent base containing 7.5% povidone-iodine, or a nonantimicrobial liquid soap (control). According to a standard protocol, subjects performed a surgical scrub on 3 days (every other day). Foam was applied after surgical scrub on day 1 and before surgical scrub on day 3. No foam was applied on day 2. Subjects were gloved for 2 hours after surgical scrub. SETTING: Laboratory setting. RESULTS: On all test days, there were significant differences in bacterial reduction by products (chlorhexidine gluconate or alcohol > povidone-iodine > control). When controlling for baseline counts and products used, there were no significant differences in colony-forming unit counts on hands with or without foam immediately after scrubbing or at 2 hours after scrub on gloved or ungloved hands, nor were there differences in glove leakage rates when foam was on hands. CONCLUSIONS: Such protectants can be used without detrimental effects to scrub effectiveness or glove integrity.