Chlorhexidine gluconate vs povidone-iodine vaginal antisepsis for urogynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although povidone-iodine (iodine) is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved vaginal antiseptic solution, there is a lack of comparative data evaluating alternatives. Chlorhexidine gluconate is readily accessible, recommended by multiple societies as an alternative for patients with iodine allergy, and preliminary data indicate that it may provide superior antisepsis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine and iodine as presurgical vaginal antiseptic solutions in preventing the most common surgery-associated infection after gynecologic surgery, urinary tract infections. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled noninferiority trial among women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. The primary outcome measure was symptomatic urinary tract infection within 2 weeks after surgery. The secondary outcomes included culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery, symptomatic urinary tract infections at 6 weeks after surgery, any surgical site infection at 2 weeks after surgery, and patient-reported vaginal irritation after surgery. We required 58 participants per arm to demonstrate noninferiority of chlorhexidine vs iodine (margin of relative risk of <1.5 for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval) between groups for the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants (61 in the chlorhexidine group and 58 in the iodine group) completed the primary outcome and were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the groups' demographic characteristics, medical history, operations performed, or perioperative factors. Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine concerning the primary outcome, symptomatic urinary tract infection at 2 weeks after surgery (10% vs 17%; relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [-∞, 1.3]). Furthermore, chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for the secondary urinary tract infection outcomes (culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery and symptomatic urinary tract infection at 6 weeks after surgery). Groups were similar in terms of surgical site infection (overall 3/119 [2.5%]) and presence of any vaginal irritation (4/54 [7.4%], for both groups). CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for vaginal antisepsis before urogynecologic surgery concerning urinary tract infection. Given the similar postoperative urinary tract infection rates demonstrated in this study and the lack of difference in vaginal irritation, chlorhexidine seemed to be a safe and reasonable option for vaginal antisepsis before surgical procedures. Additional studies are needed to further examine surgical site infection.

Midurethral Sling Removal or Revision in Women with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are (1) to estimate the incidence of midurethral sling revision/removal in women with preexisting pain diagnoses versus those without these diagnoses and (2) to describe associations between numbers and type of pain diagnoses with revision/removal. METHODS: Women who underwent midurethral sling surgery between 2009 through 2014 were identified in the MarketScan database and tracked and December 31, 2014. Patients with preoperative chronic pain diagnoses (fibromyalgia, endometriosis, irritable bowel, dyspareunia, low back pain, temporomandibular joint syndrome, interstitial cystitis, pelvic/perineal pain) were compared with controls (those without these diagnoses) regarding mesh sling revision/removal. Logistic regression identified variables associated with mesh revision/removal, and survival analysis compared timing of mesh removal/revision. RESULTS: There were 161,459 women who underwent midurethral sling surgery (pain, 83,484; nonpain, 77,975). Pain and nonpain groups differed in age (52.1 vs 53.5 years, P < 0.01) and insurance status (P < 0.01), with the pain group more commonly living in the South or West. Mean follow-up was 42.3 months. Cumulative risk for sling revision/removal was higher in patients with 1 pain diagnosis relative to controls (relative risk, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.54). Risks increased with increased pain diagnoses (≥4 diagnoses; relative risk, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.81-3.47). Pelvic pain conditions had greatest odds of mesh revision/removal (dyspareunia adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.44; 95% CI, 2.23-2.63; interstitial cystitis aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.66; pelvic/perineal pain aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.33-1.48). Co-occurrence of dyspareunia and interstitial cystitis or pelvic/perineal pain had 12.7% cumulative incidence of sling revision/removal. Cox proportional hazards revealed greatest risk for those with pelvic pain conditions (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.13-2.70). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain diagnoses increased risk of midurethral sling revision/removal; pelvic pain and numbers of diagnoses increased this risk.

Preferences for Preoperative Education: A Qualitative Study of the Patient Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to identify and describe the information that is important to patients in preparation for surgery for pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: This qualitative study enrolled English- and Spanish-speaking patients who had undergone surgery for pelvic floor disorders in semistructured focus groups. We explored patients' attitudes and views regarding preoperative education, postoperative experiences, and quality of pain management. Focus groups were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Deidentified focus group transcripts were analyzed with line-by-line coding and organized into themes using a team-based process. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted, 2 with English-speaking women (n = 14) and 2 with Spanish-speaking women (n = 10). Participants identified as non-Hispanic White 13/24 (54%) or Hispanic 11/24 (46%); 83% had at least a high school education and 50% had a bachelor's degree. Women reported 5 thematic domains of information that they deemed important for patients to know preoperatively: (1) preparation for surgery; (2) postoperative pain control expectations; (3) postoperative activity restrictions; (4) communication with care team; and (5) care experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies information that is important to patients undergoing pelvic floor surgery. These patient-centered themes go beyond routine preoperative education and counseling. This information will aid future studies regarding the incorporation of patient-centered preoperative education and expectation setting with respect to improved pain control, patient satisfaction, and overall surgical experience.