Dataset Information

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Hand Surgery.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Decontamination of the skin prior to incision is part of the standard of care for any surgical procedure. Previous studies have demonstrated variable efficacy of different surgical preparation solutions based on anatomic location. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of 3 commonly used surgical preparation solutions in eliminating bacteria from the skin prior to incision for common elective soft tissue hand procedures. METHODS:A total of 240 patients undergoing clean, elective, soft tissue hand surgery were prospectively randomized to 1 of 3 groups (ChloraPrep, DuraPrep, or Betadine). Prepreparation and postpreparation cultures were obtained adjacent to the surgical incision and neutralization was performed on the obtained specimen. Cultures were held for 14 days and patients followed for 6 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS:Postpreparation cultures were positive in 21 of 80 (26.3%) ChloraPrep patients, 3 of 79 (3.8%) DuraPrep patients, and 1 of 81 (1.2%) Betadine patients ( P < .001). There was no difference in the postpreparation culture rate between DuraPrep and Betadine ( P = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS:Duraprep and Betadine were found to be superior to Chloraprep for skin decontamination prior to clean elective soft tissue hand surgery. The bacterial flora of the hand was found to be different from those of the shoulder and spine. The clinical significance of this finding requires clinical consideration because the majority of prepreparation and postpreparation positive cultures were of Bacillus species, which are rarely a cause of postoperative infections.

SUBMITTER: Xu PZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5480658 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Hand Surgery.

Xu Peter Z PZ Fowler John R JR Goitz Robert J RJ

Hand (New York, N.Y.) 20160701 3

<h4>Background</h4>Decontamination of the skin prior to incision is part of the standard of care for any surgical procedure. Previous studies have demonstrated variable efficacy of different surgical preparation solutions based on anatomic location. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of 3 commonly used surgical preparation solutions in eliminating bacteria from the skin prior to incision for common elective soft tissue hand procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 240 patie ...[more]

PMID: 28453340

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) after elective orthopaedic surgery are very stressful for patients due to frequent rehospitalizations with reoperations and poorer functional outcomes. Prevention of such events is therefore crucial. Although an evidence-based consensus is still lacking, preoperative decolonization could decrease SSI. Specifically, more information is needed about the effect of a preoperative decolonization procedure on SSI proportions in both Staphylococcus aureus carriers and non-S. aureus carriers after general orthopaedic surgery.Questions/purposesOur study addressed the following questions: (1) Does preoperative decolonization reduce the risk of SSI after general elective orthopaedic surgery in patients colonized with S. aureus? (2) Does preoperative decolonization reduce the risk of SSI among patients who are not colonized with S. aureus?MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial, we recruited patients undergoing general elective orthopaedic surgery in one tertiary care center in Switzerland. Between November 2014 and September 2017, 1318 of 1897 screened patients were enrolled. Patients were allocated into either the S. aureus carrier group (35%, 465 of 1318 patients) or the noncarrier group (65%, 853 of 1318 patients) according to screening culture results. In the S. aureus group, 232 patients were allocated to the intervention arm and 233 were allocated to the control arm. Intervention was 5 days of daily chlorhexidine showers and mupirocin nasal ointment twice a day. Of the 853 noncarriers, 426 were allocated to the intervention arm and 427 were allocated to the control arm. All patients in both groups were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner. The primary endpoint was SSI occurrence at 90 days postoperative and the secondary endpoint was SSI occurrence at 30 days postoperative.The initial sample size calculation was made for the S. aureus carrier group. Based on the literature review, a 4% proportion of SSI was expected in the control group. Thus, 726 carriers would have been needed to detect a relative risk reduction of 80% with a power of 80% at a two-sided α-error of 0.048 (adjusted for interim analysis). Assuming carrier prevalence of 27%, 2690 patients would have been needed in total. An interim analysis was performed after including half of the targeted S. aureus carriers (363 of 726). Based on the low infection rate in the control group (one of 179), a new sample size of 15,000 patients would have been needed. This was deemed not feasible and the trial was stopped prematurely.ResultsAmong carriers, there was no difference in the risk of SSI between the intervention and control arms (decolonized SSI risk: 0.4% [one of 232], control SSI risk: 0.4% [one of 233], risk difference: 0.0% [95% CI -1.2% to 1.2%], stratified for randomization stratification factors; p > 0.999). For noncarriers, there was no difference in risk between the intervention and control arms (decolonized SSI risk: 0.2% [one of 426], control SSI risk: 0.2% [one of 247], stratified risk difference: -0.0% [95% CI -0.7 to 0.6]; p = 0.973).ConclusionsWe found no difference in the risk of SSI between the decolonization and control groups, both in S. aureus carriers and noncarriers. Because of the low event numbers, no definite conclusion about efficacy of routine preoperative decolonization can be drawn. The results, however, may be helpful in future meta-analyses.Level of evidenceLevel II, therapeutic study.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare surgeons' intraoperative surgeon acceptability or assessment of the operative field regarding bowel contents and patients' satisfaction with or without a mechanical bowel preparation before reconstructive vaginal prolapse surgery.MethodsIn this single-blind, randomized trial, women scheduled to undergo vaginal prolapse surgery with a planned apical suspension and posterior colporrhaphy were allocated using block randomization to an intervention or control group. Surgeons were blinded to patient allocation. One day before surgery, mechanical bowel preparation instructions consisted of a clear liquid diet and two self-administered saline enemas; the participants in the control group sustained a regular diet and nothing by mouth after midnight. The primary outcome was surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the surgical field regarding bowel content as measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1, excellent; 4, poor). Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction and bowel symptoms. The primary outcome was determined by intention-to-treat analysis and other analyses were per protocol.ResultsOf the 150 women randomized (75 women to intervention and control group), 145 completed the study. No differences existed in the demographic, clinical, and intraoperative characteristics between groups (P>.05). Surgeons' intraoperative assessment rating was 85% "excellent or good" with bowel preparation compared with 90% for participants in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-1.61; P=.30). The bowel preparation group was less likely to report "complete" satisfaction compared with the participants in the control group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.35; P<.001). Abdominal fullness and cramping, fatigue, anal irritation, and hunger pains were greater in the bowel preparation group (all P<.01).ConclusionBefore reconstructive vaginal surgery, mechanical bowel preparation conferred no benefit regarding surgeons' intraoperative assessment of the operative field, reflected decreased patient satisfaction, and had increased abdominal symptoms.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01431040.Level of evidenceI.

Dataset Information

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Hand Surgery.

Publications

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Hand Surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets