Optimal antiseptic skin preparation agents for minimizing surgical site infection following surgery: cost and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents. METHODS: A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t-test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t-test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection. CONCLUSION: Based on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study.

Financial Analysis of Preoperative Nasal Decolonization With Povidone-Iodine in Closed Pilon Fracture Definitive Fixation.

The purpose of this study is to determine the financial practicality for the use of nasal povidone-iodine (NP-I) in the preoperative holding area in attempt to decrease the rate of infection that is associated with operative fixation of closed pilon fractures. Institutional costs for treating postoperative infection following a closed pilon fracture, along with costs associated with preoperative NP-I use, were obtained. A break-even equation was used to analyze these costs to determine if the use of NP-I would decrease the current infection rate (17%) enough to be financially beneficial for routine use preoperatively. The total cost of treating a postoperative infection was found to be $18,912, with the cost of NP-I being $30 per patient dose. Considering a 17% infection rate and utilizing the break-even equation, NP-I was found to be economically viable if it decreased the current infection rate by 0.0016% (Number Needed to Treat = 63,051.7). This break-even model suggests that the use of NP-I in the preoperative holding area is financially beneficial for decreasing the rate of infection associated with the treatment of closed pilon fractures.

Povidone-iodine intra-abdominal irrigation versus no irrigation in pediatric perforated appendicitis: A secondary economic analysis of a Bayesian randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in children (2-17 â€‹y) with perforated appendicitis demonstrated an 89% probability of reduced intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) rate with povidone-iodine (PVI) irrigation, compared with no irrigation (NI). We hypothesized that PVI also reduced 30-day hospital costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective economic analysis of a pilot RCT. Hospital costs, inflated to 2019 U.S. dollars, were obtained for index admissions and 30-day emergency visits and readmissions. Cost differences between groups were assessed using frequentist and Bayesian generalized linear models. RESULTS: We observed a 95% Bayesian probability that PVI reduced 30-day mean total hospital costs ($16,555 [PVI] versus $18,509 [NI]; Bayesian cost ratio: 0.90, 95% CrI, 0.78-1.03). The mean absolute difference per patient was $1,954 less with PVI (95% CI, -$4,288 to $379). CONCLUSIONS: PVI likely reduced the IAA rate and 30-day hospital costs, suggesting the intervention is both clinically superior and cost saving.

Preclosure povidone-iodine lavage in total hip replacement surgery: Infection outcomes and cost-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of preclosure povidone-iodine lavage (PrePIL) used to reduce the risk of infection following total hip replacement (THR) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: One thousand six hundred ninety-nine dogs, 17 cats. METHODS: The medical records of 2213 consecutive THR cases were reviewed to determine the incidence of infection. The last 102 were treated with PrePIL using a commercially sourced 0.035% povidone-iodine solution. Postoperative infection rates were compared. A cost-benefit analysis was used to calculate if a PrePIL protocol is economically feasible. RESULTS: Twenty-one THRs out of 2111 (0.99%) that did not have PrePIL developed infection. Infection occurred in none of the 102 PrePIL cases. Cost analysis revealed a PrePIL break-even cost at $49.74 and a break-even infection rate of 0.949%. No complications were identified related to the use of PrePIL. CONCLUSION: Preclosure povidone-iodine lavage appeared to be efficacious in lowering THR infection rates, and it appeared to be safe for this use based on our 102 consecutive cases. The cost of the PrePIL was minimal compared to the overall cost to resolve THR infection and the potential effect on hip function prognosis. The math formulas developed can be used by surgeons to calculate cost effectiveness and break-even cost based on their THR infection rate, and to compare to the cost of a THR revision and infection resolution. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: At current costs, PrePIL can be used in 2415 THR cases at a similar cost of a single revision surgery and resolution of a periprosthetic infection.

Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site infections: a systematic review, GRADE assessment, and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554. FINDINGS: Overall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I2=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups. INTERPRETATION: For adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed. FUNDING: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.

Surgical solutions for preoperative skin preparation in total hip arthroplasty: A cost-effectiveness analysis of Betadine® and Chloraprep™.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare the cost of surgical site skin preparation using ChloraPrep™ (2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA]) with skin cleansing using Betadine® Surgical Scrub and Betadine® 5% solution (povidone-iodine [PVI]) in total hip arthroplasty (THA). HYPOTHESIS: The hypothesis was that the ChloraPrep™ skin disinfection protocol reduces the cost of perioperative antisepsis. METHODS: A prospective database was created for all THAs performed at our university hospital between November 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2020. Each surgeon was randomly assigned one type of antiseptic prior to the start of the study: one surgeon to the ChloraPrep™ group and one to the Betadine® group. In both groups, the enrollment stopped at the 15th patient. The costs related to consumables, waste disposal, and operating room occupancy time of each protocol were then assessed for each patient. RESULTS: The mean duration of the ChloraPrep™ protocol was 3.5±0.3minutes compared to 13.5±0.9minutes for the Betadine® protocol. The overall cost of a surgical site skin preparation involving all three steps was on average €46.8±4.2 for the ChloraPrep™ group compared to €155±10.9 for the Betadine® group (p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: Not only is the effectiveness of ChloraPrep™ already recognized but it also appears to have health economic benefits. However, further studies are needed to confirm this finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case control study.

Low-budget, single-session elimination of CIED pocket infection.

BACKGROUND: The dramatic increase in the use of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) was associated with an increased rate of CIED infection, which has a high management cost. AIM OF THE STUDY: To test the safety and efficacy of a single-session protocol, aiming to reuse the infected pocket side and the same device and leads in patients with CIED pocket infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients with isolated pocket infection between January 2015 and November 2019. The Patient was prepared by taking a swab for culture and sensitivity before the procedure. The pocket was debrided and the capsule was removed, the pocket was rinsed with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide mixture, then packed with gauze sponge soaked with povidone-iodine. The device was debrided using ultrasonic irrigation and sterilized using gas plasma. The device was reimplanted and the wound was closed in layers. RESULTS: During the period of the study, we had 12 patients with isolated pocket infection. Nine presented with erosion, two with impending erosion, and one with a chronic sinus. Patient's age was 61.5 ± 7.64 years. The infection was diagnosed 14.2 ± 8.22 weeks post device implantation. They were admitted for 7.6 ± 1.54 days postprocedure. The follow-up duration was 26.5 ± 15 (1.7-52) months. Only one patient (8%) had a recurrence of the infection after 50 days of the procedure. CONCLUSION: Our protocol was successful in treating 92% of device-related pocket infection without the need to replace the device or the pocket side.

Can Nonsterile Gloves for Dermatologic Procedures Be Cost-Effective without Compromising Infection Rates?

Over the last decade, studies have compared the use of sterile gloves (SGs) versus nonsterile gloves (NSGs) on surgical site infection (SSI) rates in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). In this study, we sought to determine SSI rates before and after employment of NSGs for dermatologic procedures. Infection data were collected from January 2009 to December 2015 on 7365 tumors treated with MMS and 1620 tumors treated by surgical excision. For MMS procedures using chlorhexidine as the antiseptic, the SSI rate with SGs was 3.39% compared to 3.06% with NSGs. For surgical excisions, the SSI rate was 3.02% with SGs and 4.17% with NSG. Using NSGs for MMS tumor resection and reconstruction can provide cost savings without adversely affecting SSI rates, and could also be considered in dermatologic procedures, including electrodessication and curettage and surgical excisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution in the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections in France.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin antiseptic solutions (chlorhexidine-alcohol (CHG) versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution (PVI)) for the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) in intensive care unit (ICU) in France based on an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (CLEAN). DESIGN: A 100-day time semi-markovian model was performed to be fitted to longitudinal individual patient data from CLEAN database. This model includes eight health states and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on cost and effectiveness were performed. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per patient with catheter-related bloodstream infection avoided. PATIENTS: 2,349 patients (age≥18 years) were analyzed to compare the 1-time CHG group (CHG-T1, 588 patients), the 4-time CHG group (CHG-T4, 580 patients), the 1-time PVI group (PVI-T1, 587 patients), and the 4-time PVI group (PVI-T4, 594 patients). INTERVENTION: 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine-alcohol) compared to 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol (povidone iodine-alcohol). RESULTS: The mean cost per alive, discharged or dead patient was of €23,798 (95% confidence interval: €20,584; €34,331), €21,822 (€18,635; €29,701), €24,874 (€21,011; €31,678), and €24,201 (€20,507; €29,136) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. The mean number of patients with CRBSI per 1000 patients was of 3.49 (0.42; 12.57), 6.82 (1.86; 17.38), 26.04 (14.64; 42.58), and 23.05 (12.32; 39.09) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. In comparison to the 1-time PVI solution, the 1-time CHG solution avoids 22.55 CRBSI /1,000 patients, and saves €1,076 per patient. This saving is not statistically significant at a 0.05 level because of the overlap of 95% confidence intervals for mean costs per patient in each group. Conversely, the difference in effectiveness between the CHG-T1 solution and the PVI-T1 solution is statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The CHG-T1 solution is more effective at the same cost than the PVI-T1 solution. CHG-T1, CHG-T4 and PVI-T4 solutions are statistically comparable for cost and effectiveness. This study is based on the data from the RCT from 11 French intensive care units registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01629550).

Cost Efficacy of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization With Intranasal Povidone-Iodine.

BACKGROUND: With increasing rates of virulent drug resistant organisms, MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) decolonization has been demonstrated to decrease infection rates. Recent research has shown the antiseptic povidone-iodine to be equally effective and potentially cost saving compared to intranasal mupirocin. This study's purpose is to evaluate the incidence of MRSA colonization in a more rural community-based population, rates of infection on a mupirocin decolonization protocol, and develop a cost analysis model to compare costs of utilizing povidone-iodine. METHODS: Utilizing over 4 years of data, the incidence of MRSA decolonization of consecutive total knee and hip arthroplasties, as well as the rates of infection of patients uncolonized, colonized with successful decolonization, and unsuccessful decolonization were evaluated. Utilizing these data, cost data, and known infection rate utilizing povidone-iodine decolonization, a cost analysis model was developed. RESULTS: Of the 5584 cases with MRSA data at a single institution, only 3.5% tested positive for intranasal MRSA. Of those patients, 69% were successfully decolonized. Of the 3864 cases with infection data, 21 sustained a surgical site infection within 90 days (0.54%). Of these patients, all tested negative for intranasal MRSA initially and therefore did not undergo the decolonization protocol. The cost analysis predicts a potential savings of $74.72 per patient at our institution to use a global intranasal povidone-iodine protocol prior to total joint arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Even with a lower incidence of MRSA than typically reported, utilization of intranasal povidone-iodine would potentially save $74.42 per patient.

Effectiveness of preoperative decolonization with nasal povidone iodine in Chinese patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery: a prospective cross-sectional study

Staphylococcus aureus colonization in the nares of patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery increases the potential risk of surgical site infections. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) has gained recognition as a pathogen that is no longer only just a hospital-acquired pathogen. Patients positive for MRSA are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality following infection. MRSA is commonly found in the nares, and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) is even more prevalent. Recently, studies have determined that screening for this pathogen prior to surgery and diminishing staphylococcal infections at the surgical site will dramatically reduce surgical site infections. A nasal mupirocin treatment is shown to significantly reduce the colonization of the pathogen. However, this treatment is expensive and is currently not available in China. Thus, in this study, we first sought to determine the prevalence of MSSA/MSRA in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery in northern China, and then, we treated the positive patients with a nasal povidone-iodine swab. Here, we demonstrate a successful reduction in the colonization of S. aureus. We propose that this treatment could serve as a cost-effective means of eradicating this pathogen in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery, which might reduce the rate of surgical site infections.

Effectiveness of preoperative decolonization with nasal povidone iodine in Chinese patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery: a prospective cross-sectional study.

Staphylococcus aureus colonization in the nares of patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery increases the potential risk of surgical site infections. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) has gained recognition as a pathogen that is no longer only just a hospital-acquired pathogen. Patients positive for MRSA are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality following infection. MRSA is commonly found in the nares, and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) is even more prevalent. Recently, studies have determined that screening for this pathogen prior to surgery and diminishing staphylococcal infections at the surgical site will dramatically reduce surgical site infections. A nasal mupirocin treatment is shown to significantly reduce the colonization of the pathogen. However, this treatment is expensive and is currently not available in China. Thus, in this study, we first sought to determine the prevalence of MSSA/MSRA in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery in northern China, and then, we treated the positive patients with a nasal povidone-iodine swab. Here, we demonstrate a successful reduction in the colonization of S. aureus. We propose that this treatment could serve as a cost-effective means of eradicating this pathogen in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery, which might reduce the rate of surgical site infections.

Is Preoperative Nasal Povidone-Iodine as Efficient and Cost-Effective as Standard Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Protocol in Total Joint Arthroplasty?

The purpose of this study was to compare nasal povidone-iodine swab for total joint arthroplasty patients to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening on the incidence of 90-day postoperative surgical site infections in total knee and hip arthroplasties as well as the cost-effectiveness. This is a single-center retrospective review of primary or revision total knee or hip arthroplasty patients. There were 849 patients screened for MRSA and 1004 patients in the nasal swab groups, both with an infection rate of 0.8%. The mean cost for the nasal swab was $27.21 (SD, 0), significantly different (P ≤ .01) than the mean cost for MRSA screens, $121.16 (SD, 26.18). There were significant cost savings with no difference in infection rates; therefore, nasal povidone-iodine swab antiseptic is financially and clinically successful.

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a single annual professional intervention for the prevention of childhood dental caries in a remote rural Indigenous community.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to reduce the high prevalence of tooth decay in children in a remote, rural Indigenous community in Australia, by application of a single annual dental preventive intervention. The study seeks to (1) assess the effectiveness of an annual oral health preventive intervention in slowing the incidence of dental caries in children in this community, (2) identify the mediating role of known risk factors for dental caries and (3) assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention is novel in that most dental preventive interventions require regular re-application, which is not possible in resource constrained communities. While tooth decay is preventable, self-care and healthy habits are lacking in these communities, placing more emphasis on health services to deliver an effective dental preventive intervention. Importantly, the study will assess cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness for broader implementation across similar communities in Australia and internationally. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of dental decay in these communities, by implementing effective, cost-effective, feasible and sustainable dental prevention programs. Expected outcomes of this study include improved oral and general health of children within the community; an understanding of the costs associated with the intervention provided, and its comparison with the costs of allowing new lesions to develop, with associated treatment costs. Findings should be generalisable to similar communities around the world. The research is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), registration number ACTRN12615000693527; date of registration: 3rd July 2015.

Betadine irrigation and post-craniotomy wound infection.

OBJECT: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of betadine irrigation in preventing postoperative wound infection in cranial neurosurgical procedures. METHODS: A total of 473 consecutive cranial neurosurgical procedures, including craniotomies and burr hole procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Patients had either antibiotic irrigation or dilute betadine plus antibiotic irrigation prior to skin closure. Infection was determined by purulence noted on reoperation and confirmed with bacterial growth culture. One and three month postoperative infection rates were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: This study included 404 patients. Betadine was used in 117 (29.0%). At 1 month after surgery, there was no difference in the rate of wound infection between the two groups (1.7% each). However, at 90 days, the betadine group had a 2.6% infection rate compared with 3.8% in the antibiotic group, indicating a 33% decrease in infection rates with the addition of betadine (p=.527). The small sample size of the study produced a low power and high beta error. CONCLUSIONS: In this small preliminary study, betadine decreased postoperative infection rates compared with antibiotic prophylaxis alone at 90 days but not 30 days. This was not statistically significant, but a larger sample size would lower the beta error and decrease confounding bias associated with group heterogeneity. The potential for betadine, a cheap, low toxicity antimicrobial, to decrease infection rates and reoperations for infection warrants a larger multicenter trial.

Comparative effectiveness of skin antiseptic agents in reducing surgical site infections: a report from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are an important source of morbidity and mortality. Chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol is effective in preventing central venous-catheter associated infections, but its effectiveness in reducing SSI in clean-contaminated procedures is uncertain. Surgical studies to date have had contradictory results. We aimed to further evaluate the relationship of commonly used antiseptic agents and SSI, and to determine if isopropyl alcohol has a unique effect. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort analysis to evaluate the relationship of commonly used skin antiseptic agents and SSI for patients undergoing mostly clean-contaminated surgery from January 2011 through June 2012. Multivariate regression modeling predicted expected rates of SSI. Risk adjusted event rates (RAERs) of SSI were compared across groups using proportionality testing. RESULTS: Among 7,669 patients, the rate of SSI was 4.6%. The RAERs were 0.85 (p = 0.28) for chlorhexidine (CHG), 1.10 (p = 0.06) for chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol (CHG+IPA), 0.98 (p = 0.96) for povidone-iodine (PVI), and 0.93 (p = 0.51) for iodine-povacrylex in isopropyl alcohol (IPC+IPA). The RAERs were 0.91 (p = 0.39) for the non-IPA group and 1.10 (p = 0.07) for the IPA group. Among elective colorectal patients, the RAERs were 0.90 (p = 0.48) for CHG, 1.04 (p = 0.67) for CHG+IPA, 1.04 (p = 0.85) for PVI, and 1.00 (p = 0.99) for IPC+IPA. CONCLUSIONS: For clean-contaminated surgical cases, this large-scale state cohort study did not demonstrate superiority of any commonly used skin antiseptic agent in reducing the risk of SSI, nor did it find any unique effect of isopropyl alcohol. These results do not support the use of more expensive skin preparation agents.

Evaluation of microbial profile in dental unit waterlines and assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of two treating agents.

OBJECTIVE: The quality of water in a dental unit used for cooling and flushing the high and low speed handpiece, air/water syringes and the scalers is of considerable importance. The present study was carried out to enumerate and identify the microorganisms present in water samples collected from dental unit waterlines of different dental specialty clinics and to find out the efficacy of two treating agents in disinfecting dental unit waterlines. STUDY DESIGN: Sample included 70 dental unit waterlines from different speciality dental clinics which were checked for microbial contamination. From these dental units 40 units were randomly selected and divided into two groups of 20 each. Group A, treatment was done in 20 dental units with 0.2% Chlorhexidine gluconate solution and Group B, treatment was done in 20 dental units with 10% Povidone iodine solution and the reduction in the microbial levels were assessed. Five dental units were randomly selected and checked the microbial contamination using mineral water sterile distilled water fresh tap water as a water source in the dental unit reservoir bottles. Also from the test group, five from each group were checked for the duration of efficacy of treating agent for one week by analyzing the water samples collected on 3,5 and 7 day intervals. RESULTS: Most of the identified microorganisms are Gram negative and pseudomonas predominating up to 98.59% of the total isolates. Usage of disinfectants 0.2% Chlorhexidine and 10% Povidone Iodine were found to be very effective in reducing the microbial contamination and 10% Povidone iodine was found to be more efficient (97.13%) and active for a period of 3 days and gradually loosing its efficacy by 7th day. No significant difference were found in microbial contamination of water samples collected from different water outlets such as handpiece outlets, air water syringe outlets, scaler lines. CONCLUSION: To continue maintaining the sterility of the Dental unit waterlines and to complete the infection control measures adopted in the dental clinics, suitable disinfectants like 0.2% Chlorhexidine on daily basis or 10% Povidone iodine on every 3rd day basis intermittently maintain the sterility of dental unit waterlines it is essential to have a good water source and an effective disinfectant.

Alcoholic povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine-based antiseptic for the prevention of central venous catheter-related infections: in-use comparison.

PURPOSE: To make a field comparison of the effectiveness, ease of use, and cost of a chlorhexidine antiseptic solution (CBA) and an alcohol-based povidone-iodine solution (PVP-IA) for the prevention of central venous catheter (CVC)-related infections in an intensive care unit, with the aim of identifying the superior antisepsis agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured the CVC colonization and infection incidence for PVP-IA (Betadine alcoolique(®)) and for CBA (Biseptine(®)) during two successive 1-year periods of routine surveillance (REA RAISIN network). A questionnaire on the ease of CBA use was administered. Consumption data were obtained from the hospital pharmacy. RESULTS: The study included 806 CVC (CBA period: 371). Upon switching from PVP-IA to CBA, we recorded a significant reduction in colonization incidence/100 catheter days (1.12 vs. 1.55, p=0.041), nonsignificant differences concerning CVC-related infection incidence/100 catheter days (0.28 vs. 0.26, p=0.426), and a nonsignificant reduction in CVC-related bacteremia/100 catheter days (0.14 vs. 0.30, p=0.052). PVP-IA users were at significantly higher risk of CVC colonization or infection based on a multivariate Cox model analysis (relative risk [95% CI]: 1.48 [1.01-2.15], p=0.043). The main drawbacks of CBA use were its low cleansing activity and its colorless solution. No cost advantage was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our field study revealed no major clinical advantage of CBA use in CVC infection and no cost advantage in addition to limited ease of use.

Split-skin graft in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of split-thickness skin grafts versus a conservative wound dressing on the healing times of diabetic foot ulcers and the length of hospital stay. METHOD: In this prospective case-controlled study, 50 patients consented to skin grafting (graft group) and 50 preferred to be managed by conservative dressings (control group). Wound management in both groups was standardised with regard to the dressing materials (which comprised a multilayer dressing including paraffin gauze and diluted povidone-iodine soaked gauze), wound care and surgeon involvement. Graft take, ulcer recurrence rate and donor-site morbidity were assessed. Healing times and the length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A 100% skin graft take was recorded in 84% of the patients on the fifth postoperative day and in 62% on weeks 3 and 8. All patients in the graft group healed completely, but 8% had an ulcer recurrence and 4% a superficial infection within the following year. The mean healing time and mean length of hospital stay were significantly less in the graft group compared with the control group (p<0.001), reflecting results of similar studies. CONCLUSION: Split-skin grafting is an effective method of managing diabetic foot ulcers as, compared with the conservative dressings used in this study, it reduced healing times and the length of hospital stay, while donor-site morbidity was minimal.