-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2014The incidence of impacted wisdom teeth (third molars) is high, with some 72% of Swedish people aged 20 to 30 years having at least one impacted wisdom tooth. Impacted... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The incidence of impacted wisdom teeth (third molars) is high, with some 72% of Swedish people aged 20 to 30 years having at least one impacted wisdom tooth. Impacted wisdom teeth occur because of a lack of space, obstruction, or abnormal position. They can cause inflammatory dental disease manifested by pain and swelling of infected teeth and may destroy adjacent teeth and bone.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Should asymptomatic, disease-free impacted wisdom teeth be removed prophylactically? What are the effects of different operative (surgical) techniques for removing impacted wisdom teeth? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: prophylactic extraction, active surveillance, and different operative (surgical) techniques for extracting impacted wisdom teeth.
Topics: Humans; Molar, Third; Prophylactic Surgical Procedures; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; United States
PubMed: 25170946
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2022Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.
DESIGN
A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.
RESULTS
Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.
CONCLUSIONS
Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Smoking; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34625985
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13268 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Jan 2016OBJECTIVE To determine the independent association between diabetes and surgical site infection (SSI) across multiple surgical procedures. DESIGN Systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE To determine the independent association between diabetes and surgical site infection (SSI) across multiple surgical procedures. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Studies indexed in PubMed published between December 1985 and through July 2015 were identified through the search terms "risk factors" or "glucose" and "surgical site infection." A total of 3,631 abstracts were identified through the initial search terms. Full texts were reviewed for 522 articles. Of these, 94 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Standardized data collection forms were used to extract study-specific estimates for diabetes, blood glucose levels, and body mass index (BMI). A random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates, and meta-regression was used to evaluate specific hypothesized sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS The primary outcome was SSI, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance criteria. The overall effect size for the association between diabetes and SSI was odds ratio (OR)=1.53 (95% predictive interval [PI], 1.11-2.12; I2, 57.2%). SSI class, study design, or patient BMI did not significantly impact study results in a meta-regression model. The association was higher for cardiac surgery 2.03 (95% PI, 1.13-4.05) compared with surgeries of other types (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS These results support the consideration of diabetes as an independent risk factor for SSIs for multiple surgical procedure types. Continued efforts are needed to improve surgical outcomes for diabetic patients. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;37(1):88-99.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26503187
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2015.249 -
The Journal of Surgical Research Jul 2021Environmental noise pollution is regarded as a general stressor. Noise levels frequently exceed recommended noise levels by the World Health Organization in hospitals,...
BACKGROUND
Environmental noise pollution is regarded as a general stressor. Noise levels frequently exceed recommended noise levels by the World Health Organization in hospitals, especially in the operation room. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of noise pollution on patient outcome and performance by operation room staff. In addition, the perception and attitude toward playing music in the operation room, which can increase noise levels, were assessed as well.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search of the databases Embase, Medline Ovid, and Cochrane from date of database inception until October 16, 2020 using the exhaustive literature search method was performed. Prospective studies evaluating the effect of noise on the patient, surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and other operation room staff, or perception and attitude toward playing music in the operation room, were included. This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (ID: 208282).
RESULTS
The literature search generated 4758 articles, and 22 prospective studies (3507 participants) were included. Three of the four studies that investigated the effect of noise on patient outcome reported a significant reduction of complication rate in surgical patients, when noise levels were lower. Six studies assessed the effect of noise in the operation room on the staff (1383 participants). Over half of the surveyed staff found noise levels to be a disturbing stressor and negatively impact performance. Although music increased decibel levels in the operation room, most surveyed staff was positively predisposed toward playing music during surgery, believing it to improve both individual and team performance. In general, music was not considered to be distracting or impairing communication.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher noise levels seem to have a negative effect on patient outcome and adversely affect performance by members in the operation room. Further research is needed to assess whether this knowledge can benefit patient outcome and surgical performance. Notably, attitude of surgical team members toward music during surgery is generally regarded favorable.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Communication; Humans; Music; Noise, Occupational; Operating Rooms; Patient Care Team; Perception; Postoperative Complications; Surgeons; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33677147
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.01.038 -
European Journal of Trauma and... Aug 2021Up to 30% of patients undergoing abdominal surgery suffer from postoperative pulmonary complications. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Up to 30% of patients undergoing abdominal surgery suffer from postoperative pulmonary complications. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to investigate whether postoperative respiratory interventions and mobilization interventions compared with usual care can prevent postoperative complications following abdominal surgery.
METHODS
The review was conducted in line with PRISMA and GRADE guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and PEDRO were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing postoperative respiratory interventions and mobilization interventions with usual care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Meta-analyses with trial sequential analysis on the outcome pulmonary complications were performed. Review registration: PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019133629) RESULTS: Pulmonary complications were addressed in 25 studies containing 2068 patients. Twenty-three studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients predominantly underwent open elective upper abdominal surgery. Postoperative respiratory interventions consisted of expiratory resistance modalities (CPAP, EPAP, BiPAP, NIV), assisted inspiratory flow modalities (IPPB, IPAP), patient-operated ventilation modalities (spirometry, PEP), and structured breathing exercises. Meta-analyses found that ventilation with high expiratory resistance (CPAP, EPAP, BiPAP, NIV) reduced the risk of pulmonary complications with OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18-0.97, p = 0.04, I = 0%) compared with usual care, however, the trial sequential analysis revealed that the required information size was not met. Neither postoperative assisted inspiratory flow therapy, patient-operated ventilation modalities, nor breathing exercises reduced the risk of pulmonary complications.
CONCLUSION
The use of postoperative expiratory resistance modalities (CPAP, EPAP, BiPAP, NIV) after abdominal surgery might prevent pulmonary complications and it seems the preventive abilities were largely driven by postoperative treatment with CPAP.
Topics: Abdomen; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Spirometry
PubMed: 33026459
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-020-01522-x -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2022During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.
METHODS
Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; General Surgery; Hemodynamics; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34916049
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.10.046 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2019Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently...
BACKGROUND
Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently recommended post-surgically. Despite its common use and many studies in this field, a systematic evaluation of the benefits after periodontal or implant surgery is-surprisingly-still missing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits of chlorhexidine rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery in terms of plaque and inflammation reduction potential. Furthermore, to screen whether the concentration changes or additives in CHX solutions reduce side effects associated with its use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for clinical trials, which compared CHX rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery with rinsing using placebo, non-staining formulations, or solutions with reduced concentrations of the active compound. Four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) were searched up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently identified and screened the literature.
RESULTS
From 691 titles identified, only eleven publications met the inclusion criteria and were finally included. Mainly early publications assessed the benefits of CHX over placebo rinsing, whereas more recent publications focused more on the evaluation of new formulations with regard to effectiveness and side effects. The use of CHX after surgery showed in general significant reduction in plaque (means of 29-86% after 1 week) and bleeding (up to 73%) as compared to placebo. No consensus, however, was found regarding the most beneficial CHX formulation avoiding side effects.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine rinsing helps to reduce biofilm formation and gingival inflammation after surgery. However, no additional reduction of periodontal probing depth over any given placebo or control solution could be found irrespective of whether CHX was used or not. The use of additives such as antidiscoloration systems (ADS) or herbal extracts may reduce side effects while retaining efficacy.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that CHX may represent a valuable chemo-preventive tool immediately after surgery, during the time period in which oral hygiene capacity is compromised. To reduce the side effects of CHX and maintain comparable clinical effects, rinsing with less concentrated formulations (e.g., 0.12%) showed the most promising results so far.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biofilms; Chlorhexidine; Dental Implantation; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Periodontal Diseases; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30535817
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2761-y -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35264372
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066785 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Colony Count, Microbial; General Surgery; Hand; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26799160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3