A Chlorhexidine Solution Reduces Aerobic Organism Growth in Operative Splash Basins in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations against the use of splash basins, due to the potential of bacterial contamination, our observation has been that they continue to be used in operating theaters. In hopes of decontaminating the splash basin, we sought to determine if the addition of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) would eliminate aerobic bacterial growth within the splash basin. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, we began enrollment in a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 splash basin solutions. Splash basins (n = 111) were randomized to either the standard of care (control) solution of sterile water or the experimental solution containing 0.05% CHG. One 20 mL aliquot was taken from the basin at the end of the surgical case and delivered to an independent laboratory. Samples were plated on tryptic soy agar (medium) and incubated at 30°C-35°C to encourage growth. After 48-72 hours, the agar plates were examined for growth and a standard plate count of aerobic cultures was performed. RESULTS: The sterile water group was found to have bacterial growth in 9% of samples compared to no growth in the CHG group (P = .045). The organisms included Micrococcus luteus, Staphylococcus hominis, Gram-variable coccobacilli, and unidentifiable Gram-positive rods. CONCLUSION: Given the safety and efficacy of a concentration of 0.05% CHG in reducing the bacterial contamination in the operative splash basin, it would seem that if the practice of using a splash basin in the operating theater is to be continued, the addition of an antiseptic solution such as that studied here should be considered.

Mouse model of post-arthroplasty Staphylococcus epidermidis joint infection.

Animal models are invaluable tools for translational research, allowing investigators to recapitulate observed clinical scenarios within the laboratory that share attributes with human disease. Here, we describe a mouse model of post-arthroplasty Staphylococcus epidermidis joint infection which mimics human disease and may be utilized to explore the complex series of events during staphylococcal implant-associated infections by identifying key immunological, bacterial, and/or therapeutic mechanisms relevant to these persistent infections.

Scleral buckle removal in the vitrectomy era: a 20-year clinical experience.

PURPOSE: To describe the effect of scleral buckle (SB) removal on preoperative symptoms and signs prompting removal and to assess the risk of recurrent retinal detachment (RD) after SB removal. METHODS: A retrospective study of 36 patients who underwent SB removal between August 1988 and December 2007 was performed. Indications for SB removal, presence or absence of pain or diplopia, and recurrence of RD were recorded. Composite RD rates were estimated from previously published studies and stratified into those occurring during the previtrectomy era versus later (1980 to present). RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 75.5 months after SB removal. Thirty-two of 33 patients (97%) who had preoperative pain had symptom relief. Twelve of 12 patients who had clinical infection had resolution. Of the four patients with diplopia, two experienced complete resolution and two reported substantial improvement but required prisms to obtain single vision. Four of 34 patients (12%) whose retinas were attached at the time of SB removal developed recurrent RD but were successfully repaired without significant visual loss from the RD. CONCLUSION: Scleral buckle removal is effective in eliminating SB-related pain and infection. Symptomatic diplopia can sometimes improve after SB removal. The rates of RD after SB removal observed in this study (12%) and in others performed in the era of vitrectomy were notably lower than those of previous reports.

Risk factors for scleral buckle removal: a matched, case-control study.

PURPOSE: To identify preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative risk factors for scleral buckle (SB) removal. DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive, matched, case-control study. METHODS: Cases included all patients undergoing SB removal between August 1988 and December 2007 at a single academic center. Cases were matched against four randomly selected control patients who underwent SB implantation during the same year as the case. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for each factor investigated. RESULTS: Forty cases of SB removal and 148 matched control cases were identified. Three cases of SB removal were omitted from analysis because of incomplete records. Factors associated with SB removal for any reason, using univariate analysis, included concurrent globe-penetrating injury at time of SB placement (OR, 24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9 to 200), concurrent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (OR, 17.3; 95% CI, 4.9 to 61), diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.8 to 30), prior chronic topical ocular therapy (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 11), and subsequent ocular procedures (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5 to 7.5). Factors independently associated with SB removal using multivariate analysis included concurrent globe-penetrating injury (OR, 27.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 426), concurrent PPV (OR, 11.3; 95% CI, 2.9 to 45), DM (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 58), and subsequent ocular procedures (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 11). Factors that did not alter SB removal risk included patient age; gender; and type, size, or location of buckling elements used. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of these risk factors may be valuable for the surgical planning of retinal detachment repair in patients at higher risk for subsequent SB removal and for risk stratification subsequent to SB implantation.

Risk factors for scleral buckle removal: a matched, case-control study.

PURPOSE: To identify preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative risk factors for scleral buckle (SB) removal. METHODS: A retrospective, consecutive, matched, case-control study. Cases included all patients undergoing SB removal between 1988 and 2007 at a single academic center. Case patients were matched against 4 randomly selected control patients who underwent SB implantation during the same year as the case patients. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each factor investigated. RESULTS: Forty cases of SB removal and 148 matched control cases were identified. Three cases of SB removal were omitted from analysis because of incomplete records. Factors associated with SB removal for any reason, according to univariate analysis, included concurrent globe-penetrating injury at the time of SB placement (OR, 24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-200), concurrent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (OR, 17.3; CI, 4.9-61), diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR, 7.3; CI, 1.8-30), prior long-term topical ocular therapy (OR, 4.3; CI, 1.7-11), and subsequent ocular procedures (OR, 3.4; CI, 1.5-7.5). Factors independently associated with SB removal according to multivariate analysis included concurrent globe-penetrating injury (OR, 27.3; CI, 1.7-426), concurrent PPV (OR, 11.3; CI, 2.9-45), DM (OR, 8.9; CI, 1.3-58), and subsequent ocular procedures (OR, 3.9; CI, 1.4-11). Factors that did not alter SB removal risk included patient age; sex; and type, size, or location of buckling elements used. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of these risk factors may be valuable for the surgical planning of retinal detachment repair in patients at higher risk for subsequent SB removal and for risk stratification subsequent to SB implantation.