Evidence Base On Operating Room

An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts.
Pereira LJ, Lee GM, Wade KJ.
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia.
Five protocols for surgical handwashing (scrubbing) were evaluated for their efficiency of removal of micro-organisms and their drying effect on the skin. The scrubbing protocols tested were: (1) an initial scrub of 5 min and consecutive scrubs of 3.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-5); (2) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-3); (3) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with povidone iodine 5% and triclosan 1% (PI-3); (4) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (IPA); and (5) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (EA). A convenience sample of 23 operating theatre nurses completed each scrub protocol for one week in a randomized order. A week of normal work activities intervened between each protocol. Subjects were assessed before commencing and after completing the week of each protocol to determine changes in the microbial counts and skin condition of the hands. Specimens for microbial analysis were collected before, immediately after and 2 h after an initial scrub, and 2 h after a consecutive scrub. The CHG-5, CHG-3 and PI-3 protocols, which used detergent-based antiseptics only, were compared with protocols incorporating an alcohol-based antiseptic (IPA and EA). The protocols incorporating alcohol-based antiseptics and the CHG-5 protocol were generally associated with the lowest post-scrub numbers of colony forming units (cfu). No difference between the CHG-5 protocol and the alcohol-based antiseptics was found at the beginning of the test week, but after exclusive use of the respective protocols for a week, the alcohol-based antiseptics were associated with significantly lower cfu numbers in two out of the three post-scrub samples (P = 0.003, P = 0.035). Although virtually no statistically significant differences in skin condition were found, many subjects reported the alcohol-based antiseptic protocols to be less drying on the skin. The findings of this study support the proposition that a scrub protocol using alcohol-based antiseptics is as effective and no more damaging to skin than more time-consuming, conventional methods using detergent-based antiseptics.
PMID: 9172045 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]





Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:21-5.
Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of povidone-iodine, povidone-iodine-ethanol and chlorhexidine gluconate-ethanol surgical scrubs.
Nishimura C.
Operating Suite, Shinshu University Hospital, Nagano 390-8621, Japan. cnishim@hsp.me.shinshu-u.ac.jp
BACKGROUND: Scrubbing of the hands and forearms with a brush and antiseptic agents has been the standard for surgical practice. However, it has been increasingly recognized that brush scrubbing may provoke side effects and that an alcohol-based hand antiseptic used in conjunction with a scrub agent enhances the effectiveness. In this study, two types of alcohol-based agents were used after a povidone-iodine (PVP-I) scrub and compared for their effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted as a crossover trial with 20 volunteers. After hand rubbing with PVP-I, either PVP-I-ethanol rubbing or chlorhexidine gluconate-ethanol (CHG-ethanol) rubbing was used for surgical hand cleansing. Samples were collected by the modified glove juice method to count bacteria on hands. RESULTS: In both groups, the bacterial count was significantly reduced after handwashing (p < 0.001), and the reduction was still significant after 2 h (p < 0.001 for PVP-I-ethanol and p < 0.002 for CHG-ethanol). The log(10) reduction factor (RF) in the PVP-I-ethanol group was significantly higher than that in the CHG-ethanol group immediately after handwashing (p < 0.001) but significantly lowered after 2 h (p < 0.01) to the level similar to that of CHG-ethanol. Although RF was lower in the CHG-ethanol group immediately after and 2 h after handwashing compared to the PVP-I-ethanol group, it did not decrease with time. CONCLUSION: Brushless surgical scrubbing with PVP-I-ethanol or CHG-ethanol in conjunction with PVP-I showed antiseptic effects immediately after and 2 h after handwashing. RF immediately after handwashing was significantly higher with PVP-I-ethanol compared to CHG-ethanol, but it was similar in both groups after 2 h. These results suggest that when used in combination with a PVP-I scrub, an alcohol-based hand antiseptic containing the same active agent (PVP-I in this study) has a powerful antiseptic effect; however, when it contains different antiseptic agents (i.e. CHG in this study), it should be selected carefully based on its antiseptic property.








Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD004288.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection.

Tanner J, Swarbrook S, Stuart J. De Montfort University and University Hospitals Leicester, Charles Frears Campus, 266 London Road, Leicester, UK, LE2 1RQ. jtanner@dmu.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Surgical hand antisepsis, to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms, is routinely carried out before undertaking invasive procedures. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (Week 5, 2007), CINAHL (June 2007), EMBASE (Week 23, 2007) and ZETOC (2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included in this review. Only one trial reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, and nine trials measured numbers of CFUs. One trial involving 4387 patients found alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients were as effective as aqueous scrubs in reducing SSIs. Four trials compared different alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients with aqueous scrubs for numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found N-duopropenide more effective than chlorhexidine and povidone iodine aqueous scrubs. One trial found 45% propanol-2, 30% propanol-1 with 0.2% ethylhexadecyldimethyl ammonium ethylsulfate more effective than chlorhexidine scrubs. One trial found no difference between 1% chlorhexidine gluconate in 61% ethyl alcohol or zinc pyrithione in 70% ethyl alcohol against aqueous povidone iodine. A fourth trial found 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs more effective than chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol rubs. Four trials compared the relative effects of different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands. Three trials found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs were significantly more effective than povidone iodine scrubs. One trial found no difference between chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs and povidone iodine plus triclosan scrubs. Two trials found no evidence of a difference between alternative alcohol rubs in terms of the number of CFUs. Four trials compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found no difference after the initial scrub but found subsequent three minute scrubs using chlorhexidine significantly more effective than subsequent scrubs lasting 30 seconds. One trial found that following a one minute hand wash, a three minute rub appears to be more effective than the five minute rub using alcohol disinfectant. The other comparisons demonstrated no difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol rubs used in preparation for surgery by the scrub team are as effective as aqueous scrubbing in preventing SSIs however this evidence comes from only one, equivalence, cluster trial which did not appear to adjust for clustering. Four comparisons suggest that alcohol rubs are at least as, if not more, effective than aqueous scrubs though the quality of these is mixed and each study presents a different comparison, precluding meta analysis. There is no evidence to suggest that any particular alcohol rub is better than another. Evidence from 4 studies suggests that chlorhexidine gluconate based aqueous scrubs are more effective than povidone iodine based aqueous scrubs in terms of the numbers of CFUs on the hands. There is limited evidence regarding the effects on CFUs numbers of different scrub durations. There is no evidence regarding the effect of equipment such as brushes and sponges.
PMID: 18254046 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


JAMA. 2002 Aug 14;288(6):722-7.
Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study.
Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Heller R, Le Roux Y, von Theobald P, Bensadoun H, Bouvet A, Lemarchand F, Le Coutour X; Antisepsie Chirurgicale des mains Study Group.
Departments of Infectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Côte de Nacre University Hospital Centre, 14 033 Caen Cedex, France. parienti@u444.jussieu.fr
Erratum in:
• JAMA 2002 Dec 4;288(21):2689. Bensadoun, Hervé [corrected to Bensadoun, Henri].
Comment in:
• JAMA. 2002 Dec 4;288(21):2688; author reply 2688-9.
• Evid Based Nurs. 2003 Apr;6(2):54-5.
CONTEXT: Surgical site infections prolong hospital stays, are among the leading nosocomial causes of morbidity, and a source of excess medical costs. Clinical studies comparing the risk of nosocomial infection after different hand antisepsis protocols are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand-cleansing protocols in preventing surgical site infections during routine surgical practice. DESIGN: Randomized equivalence trial. SETTING: Six surgical services from teaching and nonteaching hospitals in France. PATIENTS: A total of 4387 consecutive patients who underwent clean and clean-contaminated surgery between January 1, 2000, and May 1, 2001. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical services used 2 hand-cleansing methods alternately every other month: a hand-rubbing protocol with 75% aqueous alcoholic solution containing propanol-1, propanol-2, and mecetronium etilsulfate; and a hand-scrubbing protocol with antiseptic preparation containing 4% povidone iodine or 4% chlorhexidine gluconate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day surgical site infection rates were the primary end point; operating department teams' tolerance of and compliance with hand antisepsis were secondary end points. RESULTS: The 2 protocols were comparable in regard to surgical site infection risk factors. Surgical site infection rates were 55 of 2252 (2.44%) in the hand-rubbing protocol and 53 of 2135 (2.48%) in the hand-scrubbing protocol, for a difference of 0.04% (95% confidence interval, -0.88% to 0.96%). Based on subsets of personnel, compliance with the recommended duration of hand antisepsis was better in the hand-rubbing protocol of the study compared with the hand-scrubbing protocol (44% vs 28%, respectively; P =.008), as was tolerance, with less skin dryness and less skin irritation after aqueous solution use. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-rubbing with aqueous alcoholic solution, preceded by a 1-minute nonantiseptic hand wash before each surgeon's first procedure of the day and before any other procedure if the hands were soiled, was as effective as traditional hand-scrubbing with antiseptic soap in preventing surgical site infections. The hand-rubbing protocol was better tolerated by the surgical teams and improved compliance with hygiene guidelines. Hand-rubbing with liquid aqueous alcoholic solution can thus be safely used as an alternative to traditional surgical hand-scrubbing.
PMID: 12169076 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]