Comparison of 3 Methods to Assess Occupational Sevoflurane Exposure in Abdominal Surgeons: A Single-Center Observational Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrated that operating room personnel are exposed to anesthetic gases such as sevoflurane (SEVO). Measuring the gas burden is essential to assess the exposure objectively. Air pollution measurements and the biological monitoring of urinary SEVO and its metabolite hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) are possible approaches. Calculating the mass of inhaled SEVO is an alternative, but its predictive power has not been evaluated. We investigated the SEVO burdens of abdominal surgeons and hypothesized that inhaled mass calculations would be better suited than pollution measurements in their breathing zones (25 cm around nose and mouth) to estimate urinary SEVO and HFIP concentrations. The effects of potentially influencing factors were considered. METHODS: SEVO pollution was continuously measured by photoacoustic gas monitoring. Urinary SEVO and HFIP samples, which were collected before and after surgery, were analyzed by a blinded environmental toxicologist using the headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method. The mass of inhaled SEVO was calculated according to the formula mVA = cVA·(Equation is included in full-text article.)·t·ρ VA aer. (mVA: inhaled mass; cVA: volume concentration; (Equation is included in full-text article.): respiratory minute volume; t: exposure time; and ρ VA aer.: gaseous density of SEVO). A linear multilevel mixed model was used for data analysis and comparisons of the different approaches. RESULTS: Eight surgeons performed 22 pancreatic resections. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) SEVO pollution was 0.32 ppm (0.09 ppm). Urinary SEVO concentrations were below the detection limit in all samples, whereas HFIP was detectable in 82% of the preoperative samples in a mean (SD) concentration of 8.53 µg·L (15.53 µg·L; median: 2.11 µg·L, interquartile range [IQR]: 4.58 µg·L) and in all postoperative samples (25.42 µg·L [21.39 µg·L]). The mean (SD) inhaled SEVO mass was 5.67 mg (2.55 mg). The postoperative HFIP concentrations correlated linearly to the SEVO concentrations in the surgeons' breathing zones (ß = 216.89; P < .001) and to the calculated masses of inhaled SEVO (ß = 4.17; P = .018). The surgeon's body mass index (BMI), age, and the frequency of surgeries within the last 24 hours before study entry did not influence the relation between HFIP concentration and air pollution or inhaled mass, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The biological SEVO burden, expressed as urinary HFIP concentration, can be estimated by monitoring SEVO pollution in the personnel's individual breathing zone. Urinary SEVO was not an appropriate biomarker in this setting.

Environmental safety: Air pollution while using MIRUS™ for short-term sedation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: MIRUS™ is a device for target-controlled inhalational sedation in the ICU in combination with use of isoflurane, or sevoflurane, or desflurane. The feasibility of this device has recently been proven; however, ICU staff exposure may restrict its application. We investigated ICU ambient room pollution during daily work to estimate ICU personnel exposure while using MIRUS™. METHODS: This observational study assessed pollution levels around 15 adult surgical patients who received volatile anaesthetics-based sedation for a median of 11 hours. Measurements were performed by photoacoustic gas monitoring in real-time at different positions near the patient and in the personnel's breathing zone. Additionally, the impact of the Clean Air™ open reservoir scavenging system on volatile agent pollution was evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline concentrations [ppm] during intervention and rest periods were isoflurane c¯mean = 0.58 ± 0.49, c¯max = 5.72; sevoflurane c¯mean = 0.22 ± 0.20, c¯max = 7.93; and desflurane c¯mean = 0.65 ± 0.57, c¯max = 6.65. Refilling MIRUS™ with liquid anaesthetic yielded gas concentrations of c¯mean = 2.18 ± 1.48 ppm and c¯max = 13.03 ± 9.37 ppm in the personnel's breathing zone. Air pollution in the patient's room was approximately five times higher without a scavenging system. CONCLUSION: Ambient room pollution was minimal in most cases, and the measured values were within or below the recommended exposure limits. Caution should be taken during refilling of the MIRUS™ system, as this was accompanied by higher pollution levels. The combined use of air-conditioning and gas scavenging systems is strongly recommended.

Photoacoustic gas monitoring for anesthetic gas pollution measurements and its cross-sensitivity to alcoholic disinfectants.

BACKGROUND: Real-time photoacoustic gas monitoring is used for personnel exposure and environmental monitoring, but its accuracy varies when organic solvents such as alcohol contaminate measurements. This is problematic for anesthetic gas measurements in hospitals, because most disinfectants contain alcohol, which could lead to false-high gas concentrations. We investigated the cross-sensitivities of the photoacoustic gas monitor Innova 1412 (AirTech Instruments, LumaSense, Denmark) against alcohols and alcoholic disinfectants while measuring sevoflurane, desflurane and isoflurane in a laboratory and in hospital during surgery. METHODS: 25 mL ethyl alcohol was distributed on a hotplate. An optical filter for isoflurane was used and the gas monitor measured the 'isoflurane' concentration for five minutes with the measuring probe fixed 30 cm above the hotplate. Then, 5 mL isoflurane was added vaporized via an Anesthetic Conserving Device (Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden). After one-hour measurement, 25 mL isopropyl alcohol, N-propanol, and two alcoholic disinfectants were subsequently added, each in combination with 5 mL isoflurane. The same experiment was in turn performed for sevoflurane and desflurane. The practical impact of the cross-sensitivity was investigated on abdominal surgeons who were exposed intraoperatively to sevoflurane. A new approach to overcome the gas monitor's cross-sensitivity is presented. RESULTS: Cross-sensitivity was observed for all alcohols and its strength characteristic for the tested agent. Simultaneous uses of anesthetic gases and alcohols increased the concentrations and the recovery times significantly, especially while sevoflurane was utilized. Intraoperative measurements revealed mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations of 0.61 ± 0.26 ppm and 15.27 ± 14.62 ppm. We replaced the cross-sensitivity peaks with the 10th percentile baseline of the anesthetic gas concentration. This reduced mean and maximum concentrations significantly by 37% (p < 0.001) and 86% (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Photoacoustic gas monitoring is useful to detect lowest anesthetic gases concentrations, but cross-sensitivity caused one third falsely high measured mean gas concentration. One possibility to eliminate these peaks is the recovery time-based baseline approach. Caution should be taken while measuring sevoflurane, since marked cross-sensitivity peaks are to be expected.

Kinetics of isoflurane and sevoflurane in a unidirectional displacement flow and the relevance to anesthetic gas exposure by operating room personnel.

International guidelines recommend the use of ventilation systems in operating rooms to reduce the concentration of potentially hazardous substances such as anesthetic gases. The exhaust air grilles of these systems are typically located in the lower corners of the operating room and pick up two-thirds of the air volume, whereas the final third is taken from near the ceiling, which guarantees an optimal perfusion of the operating room with a sterile filtered air supply. However, this setup is also employed because anesthetic gases have a higher molecular weight than the components of air and should pool on the floor if movement is kept to a minimum and if a ventilation system with a unidirectional displacement flow is employed. However, this anticipated pooling of volatile anesthetics at the floor level has never been proven. Thus, we herein investigated the flow behaviors of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and carbon dioxide (for comparison) in a measuring chamber sized 2.46 × 1.85 × 5.40 m with a velocity of 0.3 m/sec and a degree of turbulence <20%. Gas concentrations were measured at 1,728 measuring positions throughout the measuring chamber, and the flow behaviors of isoflurane and sevoflurane were found to be similar, with an overlap of 90%. The largest spread of both gases was 55 cm at 5.4 m from the emission source. Interestingly, neither isoflurane nor sevoflurane was detected at floor level, but a continuous cone-like spreading was observed due to gravity. In contrast, carbon dioxide accumulated at floor level in the form of a gas cloud. Thus, floor level exhaust ventilation systems are likely unsuitable for the collection and removal of anesthetic gases from operating rooms.

The Personnel's Sevoflurane Exposure in the Postanesthesia Care Unit Measured by Photoacoustic Gas Monitoring and Hexafluoroisopropanol Biomonitoring.

PURPOSE: Room ventilation in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) is often poor, although patients exhale anesthetic gases. We investigated the PACU personnel's environmental and biological sevoflurane (SEVO) burden during patient care. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. METHODS: Air pollution was measured by photoacoustic gas monitoring in the middle of the PACU, above the patient's face, and on the PACU corridor. Urinary SEVO and hexafluoroisopropanol concentrations were determined. FINDINGS: Mean air pollution was 0.34 ± 0.07 ppm in the middle of the PACU, 0.56 ± 0.17 ppm above the patient's face, and 0.47 ± 0.06 ppm on the corridor. Biological preshift exposure levels were 0.13 ± 0.03 mcg/L (SEVO) and 4.72 ± 5.41 mcg/L (hexafluoroisopropanol). Postshift concentrations increased significantly to 0.20 ± 0.06 mcg/L (P = .004) and 42.18 ± 27.82 mcg/L (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: PACU personnel were environmentally and biologically exposed to SEVO, but exposure levels were minimal according to current recommendations.

Inhaled anesthetic agent sedation in the ICU and trace gas concentrations: a review.

There is a growing interest in the use of volatile anesthetics for inhalational sedation of adult critically ill patients in the ICU. Its safety and efficacy has been demonstrated in various studies and technical equipment such as the anaesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa™; Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden) or the MIRUS™ system (Pall Medical, Dreieich, Germany) have significantly simplified the application of volatile anesthetics in the ICU. However, the personnel's exposure to waste anesthetic gas during daily work is possibly disadvantageous, because there is still uncertainty about potential health risks. The fact that average threshold limit concentrations for isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane either differ significantly between countries or are not even defined at all, leads to raising concerns among ICU staff. In this review, benefits, risks, and technical aspects of inhalational sedation in the ICU are discussed. Further, the potential health effects of occupational long-term low-concentration agent exposure, the staffs' exposure levels in clinical practice, and strategies to minimize the individual gas exposure are reviewed.

Efficiencies and noise levels of portable surgical smoke evacuation systems.

Surgical smoke resulting from electrocauterization is a health risk for operating room personnel. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends the use of local exhaust ventilation such as a portable smoke evacuation system to reduce surgical smoke, but its efficiency has never been assessed under experimental conditions. In this study, particle filtration efficiencies of five commercially available smoke evacuation systems were investigated in a model operating room. Two cutting angles, the devices' suction capacities, three unidirectional displacement flow rates, and the noise exposures were considered. Results demonstrated that portable smoke evacuation systems reduce surgical smoke up to 99% under optimal conditions. A cutting angle of 45°, the device's maximum suction capacity, and a unidirectional displacement flow rate of 10,500 m³/hr were advantageous. Sound levels ranged between 51-69 dBA and exceeded recommended threshold limits, if used with medium or maximum suction capacity. Hence, portable smoke evacuation systems are beneficial and are recommended. However, a combination with general unidirectional room ventilation and a strict limitation of the use of electrocauterization is strongly advised.

The child's behavior during inhalational induction and its impact on the anesthesiologist's sevoflurane exposure.

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is commonly used for inhalational inductions in children, but the personnel's exposure to it is potentially harmful. Guidance to reduce gas pollution refers mainly to technical aspects, but the impact of the child's behavior has not yet been studied. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine how child behavior, according to the Frankl Behavioral Scale, affects the amount of waste sevoflurane in anesthesiologists' breathing zones. METHODS: Sixty-eight children aged 36-96 months undergoing elective ENT surgery were recruited for this prospective, observational investigation. After oral midazolam premedication (0.5 mg/kg body weight), patients obtained sevoflurane using a facemask with an inspiratory concentration of 8 Vol.% in 100% oxygen (flow 10 L/min). Ventilation was manually supported and a venous catheter was placed. The inspiratory sevoflurane concentration was reduced, and remifentanil and propofol were administered before the facemask was removed and a cuffed tracheal tube inserted. The child's behavior toward the operating room personnel during induction was evaluated by the anesthesiologist (Frankl Behavioral Scale: 1-2 = negative behavior, 3-4 = positive behavior). During induction mean (c¯mean) and maximum (c¯max), sevoflurane concentrations were determined in the anesthesiologist's breathing zone by continuous photoacoustic gas monitoring. RESULTS: Mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations were c¯mean = 4.38 ± 4.02 p.p.m and c¯max = 70.06 ± 61.08 p.p.m in patients with positive behaviors and sufficient premedications and c¯mean = 12.63 ± 8.66 p.p.m and c¯max = 242.86 ± 139.91 p.p.m in children with negative behaviors and insufficient premedications (c¯mean: P < .001; c¯max: P < .001). CONCLUSION: Negative behavior was accompanied by significantly higher mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologist's breathing zone compared with children with positive attitudes. Consequently, the status of premedication influences the amount of sevoflurane pollution in the air of operating rooms.

Occupational Chronic Sevoflurane Exposure in the Everyday Reality of the Anesthesia Workplace.

BACKGROUND: Although sevoflurane is one of the most commonly used volatile anesthetics in clinical practice, anesthesiologists are hardly aware of their individual occupational chronic sevoflurane exposure. Therefore, we studied sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologists' breathing zones, depending on the kind of induction for general anesthesia, the used airway device, and the type of airflow system in the operating room. Furthermore, sevoflurane baselines and typical peaks during general anesthesia were determined. METHODS: Measurements were performed with the LumaSense Photoacoustic Gas Monitor. As we detected the gas monitor's cross-sensitivity reactions between sevoflurane and disinfectants, regression lines for customarily used disinfectants during surgery (Cutasept®, Octeniderm®) and their alcoholic components were initially analyzed. Hospital sevoflurane concentrations were thereafter measured during elective surgery in 119 patients. The amount of inhaled sevoflurane by anesthesiologists was estimated according to mVA = cVA × V × t × ρVA aer. RESULTS: Induction of general anesthesia stopped after tracheal intubation with the patient's expiratory sevoflurane concentration of 1.5%. Thereby, inhalational inductions (INH) caused higher sevoflurane concentrations than IV inductions (mean [SD]: (Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] INH 2.43 ± 1.91 versus IV 0.62 ± 0.33, P < 0.001; mVA [mg] INH 1.95 ± 1.54 versus IV 0.30 ± 0.22, P < 0.001). The use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA™) led to generally higher sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologists' breathing zones than tracheal tubes ((Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] tube 0.37 ± 0.16 versus LMA™ 0.79 ± 0.53, P = 0.009; (Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] tube 1.91 ± 0.91 versus LMA™ 2.91 ± 1.81, P = 0.057; mVA [mg] tube 1.47 ± 0.64 versus LMA™ 2.73 ± 1.81, P = 0.019). Sevoflurane concentrations were trended higher during surgery in operating rooms with turbulent flow (TF) air-conditioning systems compared with laminar flow (LF) air-conditioning systems ((Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] TF 0.29 ± 0.12 versus LF 0.13 ± 0.06, P = 0.012; mVA [mg/h] TF 1.16 ± 0.50 versus LF 0.51 ± 0.25, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists are chronically exposed to trace concentrations of sevoflurane during work. Inhalational inductions, LMA™, and TF air-conditioning systems in particular are associated with higher sevoflurane exposure. However, the amount of inhaled sevoflurane per day was lower than expected, perhaps because concentrations in previous measurements could be overestimated (10%-15%) because of the cross-sensitivity reaction.

Reduction of Airborne Bacterial Burden in the OR by Installation of Unidirectional Displacement Airflow (UDF) Systems.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative bacterial contamination is a major risk factor for postoperative wound infections. This study investigated the influence of type of ventilation system on intraoperative airborne bacterial burden before and after installation of unidirectional displacement air flow systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We microbiologically monitored 1286 surgeries performed by a single surgical team that moved from operating rooms (ORs) equipped with turbulent mixing ventilation (TMV, according to standard DIN-1946-4 [1999], ORs 1, 2, and 3) to ORs with unidirectional displacement airflow (UDF, according to standard DIN-1946-4, annex D [2008], ORs 7 and 8). The airborne bacteria were collected intraoperatively with sedimentation plates. After incubation for 48 h, we analyzed the average number of bacteria per h, peak values, and correlation to surgery duration. In addition, we compared the last 138 surgeries in ORs 1-3 with the first 138 surgeries in ORs 7 and 8. RESULTS: Intraoperative airborne bacterial burden was 5.4 CFU/h, 5.5 CFU/h, and 6.1 CFU/h in ORs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Peak values of burden were 10.7 CFU/h, 11.1 CFU/h, and 11.0 CFU/h in ORs 1, 2, and 3, respectively). With the UDF system, the intraoperative airborne bacterial burden was reduced to 0.21 CFU/h (OR 7) and 0.35 CFU/h (OR 8) on average (p<0.01). Accordingly, peak values decreased to 0.9 CFU/h and 1.0 CFU/h in ORs 7 and 8, respectively (p<0.01). Airborne bacterial burden increased linearly with surgery duration in ORs 1-3, but the UDF system in ORs 7 and 8 kept bacterial levels constantly low (<3 CFU/h). A comparison of the last 138 surgeries before with the first 138 surgeries after changing ORs revealed a 94% reduction in average airborne bacterial burden (5 CFU/h vs. 0.29 CFU/h, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The unidirectional displacement airflow, which fulfills the requirements of standard DIN-1946-4 annex D of 2008, is an effective ventilation system that reduces airborne bacterial burden under real clinical conditions by more than 90%. Although decreased postoperative wound infection incidence was not specifically assessed, it is clear that airborne microbiological burden contributes to surgical infections.

Infection Prevention and the Protective Effects of Unidirectional Displacement Flow Ventilation in the Turbulent Spaces of the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Unidirectional displacement flow (UDF) ventilation systems in operating rooms are characterized by a uniformity of velocity ≥80% and protect patients and operating room personnel against exposure to hazardous substances. However, the air below the surgical lights and in the surrounding zone is turbulent, which impairs the ventilation system's effect. AIM: We first used the recovery time (RT) as specified in International Organization for Standardization 14644 to determine the particle reduction capacity in the turbulent spaces of an operating room with a UDF system. METHODS: The uniformity of velocity was analyzed by comfort-level probe grid measurements in the protected area below a hemispherical closed-shaped and a semi-open column-shaped surgical light (tilt angles: 0°/15°/30°) and in the surrounding zone of a research operating room. Thereafter, RTs were calculated. RESULTS: At a supply air volume of 10,500 m3/h, the velocity, reported as average uniformity ± standard deviation, was uniform in the protected area without lights (95.8% ± 1.7%), but locally turbulent below the hemispherical closed-shaped (69.3% ± 14.6%), the semi-open column-shaped light (66.9% ± 10.9%), and in the surrounding zone (51.5% ± 17.6%). The RTs ranged between 1.1 and 1.7 min below the lights and 3.5 ± 0.28 min in the surrounding zone and depended exponentially on the volume flow rate. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to an RT of ≤20 min as required for operating rooms with mixed dilution flow, particles here were eliminated 12-18 times more quickly from below the surgical lights and 5.7 times from the surrounding zone. Thus, the effect of the lights was negligible and the UDF's retained its strong protective effect.

Evaluation of toxic side effects of clinically used skin antiseptics in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Skin antiseptics are widely used in health-care worldwide. However, there is a need to determine cytotoxicity of these medications on wounds. The aim of this study was to evaluate cytotoxic effects of five clinically used antiseptics on human skin cells. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five clinically used skin antiseptics (Prontosan, Lavasept, Braunol, Octenisept, and Betaisodona) were tested. The minimal inhibitory concentration was determined against Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli). The cytotoxic effects on primary keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and a HaCaT cell line were determined (MTT-assay and BrdU-ELISA) at a wide range of concentrations. RESULTS: The agents tested showed effective antibacterial properties (Octenisept, Lavasept, and Prontosan showed higher efficacy than Braunol and Betaisodona) and different degrees of cytotoxicity. Lavasept and Prontosan demonstrated less toxicity on primary human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, whereas Octenisept, Betaisodona, and Braunol showed a significant (P<0.05) decrease in cell viability to 0% on keratinocytes at concentrations of 4%, 7.5%, and 12.5%, and on fibroblasts at 7.5% and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Due to the cytotoxic effect of some antiseptics on human skin cells, it is advised that health care professionals balance the cytotoxicity of the medication, their antiseptic properties, and the severity of colonization when selecting a wound care antiseptic. In this study, Lavasept and Prontosan showed best result regarding antibacterial efficacy and cell toxicity.

The impact of the anesthetic conserving device on occupational exposure to isoflurane among intensive care healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Use of anesthetic conserving devices (ACD) for inhalational isoflurane sedation in Intensive Care Units (ICU) has grown in recent years, and healthcare professionals are concerned about isoflurane pollution and exposure-related health risks. Real-time measurements to determine isoflurane exposure in ICU personnel during short-term patient care procedures and ACD handling have not yet been performed. METHODS: Isoflurane concentrations in the breathing zones of ICU staff (25 cm around the nose and mouth) were measured, by photoacoustic gas monitoring, during daily practice including tracheal suctioning, oral hygiene, body care, and patient positioning. Isoflurane pollution was further determined during ACD replacement, syringe filling, and after isoflurane spillages. RESULTS: The average mean isoflurane concentration 25 cm above patients' tracheostoma was 0.3 ppm. Mean (cmean) and maximum (cmax) isoflurane exposure in personnel's breathing zones during patient care ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 ppm and 0.7 to 6.6 ppm, respectively. Isoflurane exposure during ACD replacement was cmean 0.5 to 17.4 ppm and cmax 0.8 to 114.3 ppm. Isoflurane concentrations during ACD syringe filling ranged from 2.4 to 9.1 ppm. The maximum isoflurane concentrations after spillage were dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ACDs and patient physical manipulation are accompanied by isoflurane pollution. Baseline concentrations did not exceed long-term exposure limits, but short-term limits were occasionally exceeded during patient care procedures and ACD handling. Spillages should be avoided, especially when air-conditioning and scavenging systems are unavailable.

Bacterial burden in the operating room: impact of airflow systems.

BACKGROUND: Wound infections present one of the most prevalent and frequent complications associated with surgical procedures. This study analyzes the impact of currently used ventilation systems in the operating room to reduce bacterial contamination during surgical procedures. METHODS: Four ventilation systems (window-based ventilation, supported air nozzle canopy, low-turbulence displacement airflow, and low-turbulence displacement airflow with flow stabilizer) were analyzed. Two hundred seventy-seven surgical procedures in 6 operating rooms of 5 different hospitals were analyzed for this study. RESULTS: Window-based ventilation showed the highest intraoperative contamination (13.3 colony-forming units [CFU]/h) followed by supported air nozzle canopy (6.4 CFU/h; P = .001 vs window-based ventilation) and low-turbulence displacement airflow (3.4 and 0.8 CFU/h; P < .001 vs window-based ventilation and supported air nozzle canopy). The highest protection was provided by the low-turbulence displacement airflow with flow stabilizer (0.7 CFU/h), which showed a highly significant difference compared with the best supported air nozzle canopy theatre (3.9 CFU/h; P < .001). Furthermore, this system showed no increase of contamination in prolonged durations of surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: This study shows that intraoperative contamination can be significantly reduced by the use of adequate ventilation systems.

Antimicrobial activity of clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents in combination with wound dressings.

BACKGROUND: A primary strategy for preventing and treating wound infection in chronic wounds is the use of topical antiseptics and wound irrigating agents. However, their interaction with commonly used wound dressings has not yet been investigated. In this study, the authors analyzed the antimicrobial activity of antiseptics and wound irrigating agents used with commercially available wound dressings. METHODS: Five clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents (Prontosan, Lavasept, Braunol, Octenisept, and Betaisodona) were tested in the presence or absence of 42 wound dressings against Staphylococcus aureus. The determination of antibacterial activity was performed by disk diffusion assay. RESULTS: Povidone-iodine-based products showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 64 to 78 percent of the combinations assessed (p > 0.01). The octenidine derivate Octenisept showed sufficient antimicrobial activity in 54 percent of combinations. Polyhexamethylene biguanide derivatives demonstrated sufficient antimicrobial activity in 32 percent of the combinations. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that commonly used wound dressings dramatically reduce antibacterial activity of clinically used antiseptics and wound irrigating agents in vitro.

Antiseptics in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Wound healing is a complex process, with many potential factors that can delay or complicate healing. Bacterial infection is one of the most dangerous complications once the skin barrier is destroyed. The search for optimal treatment of chronic and infected wounds is an ongoing challenge for healthcare professionals. METHODS: This article discusses recent findings in the field of wound antiseptics, its antibacterial efficacy, cell toxicity, and compatibility with wound dressings. RESULTS: Skin antiseptics are daily used for wound cleansing to reduce the bacterial burden. However, there is little evidence concerning the antimicrobial efficacy, cytotoxicity of host cells, and compatibility with commonly used wound dressings. Recent findings show high toxicity and significant incompatibilities with wound dressings for some antiseptics. CONCLUSION: Antiseptics are widely used in hospitals worldwide to reduce, inactivate, or eliminate potentially pathogenic microorganisms. Current studies show that widely used wound antiseptics show relevant cytotoxicity and cross-reactivity with certain wound dressings. Future research should particularly focus on cytotoxicity, mechanisms of bacterial resistance toward skin antiseptics and wound irrigants, as well as compatibility and cross-reactivity with wound dressings.