The effect of 7.5% Povidone-Iodine versus 0.2% Chlorhexidine on Microbial Count of Surgical Site in Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Document Type : Original Quantitative and Qualitative Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Nursing, Department of Operating Room, School of Allied Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Instructor of Operating Room. Department of Operating Room and Anesthesiology, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Bacteriology, Department of Laboratory Sciences School of Allied Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Medical Librarian. Deputy of Research and Technology, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

5 Assistant Professor of Nursing, Department of Operating Room and Anesthesiology, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Background: One of the most common preventive methods of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is preoperative skin preparation. Selecting the skin antiseptic before surgery is an important step that can reduce SSI risk.
Aim: The present study was performed with aim to compare the effect of 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) and 70% alcohol versus 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHG) and 70% alcohol on the microbial count of the surgical site in the abdominal surgery.
Method: This double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conducted between March 2017 and July 2018 at the educational-therapeutic centers of Iran University of Medical Sciences. The patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective abdominal surgery were randomly assigned into two groups to have their skin cleaned before surgery with CHG-alcohol or PVP-I-alcohol. Also, before skin prep, after the primary prep and after the secondary prep, microbial cultures were taken. Data analysis was performed using SPSS (version 16) and Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Wilcoxon and U-Mann-Whitney tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The microbial counts mean differences before and after skin preparation with PVP-I-alcohol were significant (P<0.05). Also, the microbial counts mean differences before and after skin preparation with CHG-alcohol were significant (P<0.05). Overall, both antiseptic groups significantly reduced microbial counts. Although the skin preparation with CHG-alcohol was better than the PVP-I-alcohol solution, the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05).
Implications for Practice: This study did not demonstrate an overall superiority of 2% CHG over 7.5% PVP-I skin preparation solution or vice versa. Both groups can be used to prepare patients' skin before abdominal surgery due to the affordability conditions and availability.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

Introduction

Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is the second most common cause of healthcare-associated infection (1). Patients who develop SSI are prone to long-term hospitalization, pain, disability, poor healing, and the use of many antibiotics, representing the financial and psychological burden on patients (2,3). In addition, severe SSI is associated with significant morbidity and mortality (4,5).

One of the most common preventive methods of SSI is preoperative skin preparationthat can reduce SSI risk (6). Selecting the skin antiseptic before surgery is an important step in preventing SSI (7). In 2016, WHO recommended 29 antiseptics for prevention of SSI including alcohol, chlorhexidine Gloconate (CHG), and Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) (8). These antiseptics quickly reduce the number of microorganisms in the surgical site and inhibit microbial growth for several hours (9,10). In the study of Bazi et al. (2015), the results showed that the combination of alcohol and betadine, and also in the study of  Malekzadeh et al. (2015), the results showed that betadine is an effective disinfectant in reducing inflammation and infection of the vascular access in hemodialysis patients (11,12). The research of Mimoz et al. (2015) demonstrated that both chlorhexidine and povidine-iodine have broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties that are effective against a wide range of bacteria, fungi, and viruses (13).

Some studies perform more than one skin prep per surgery to achieve greater success (14). Also, combining two antiseptics, each of which has a separate action of destroying microbes, may increase the effectiveness of antiseptics; In addition, if there is resistance to one antiseptic, a second antiseptic may be more effective (14). Therefore, it seems reasonable to use the combination of povidone-iodine with alcohol or chlorhexidine with alcohol.

 On the other hand, according to some studies, preoperative skin cleansing with CHG-alcohol reduces SSI as compared with PVP-I solutions (15,16). Also, some studies reported that both CHG-alcohol and PVP-I solutions are equally effective antiseptic agents for the prevention of infections (17,18).

To our knowledge, surgical site infection remains as one of the side effects of surgeries and no powered RCTs have evaluated the effect of combining various skin preparations on microbial count in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Therefore, this study was performed with aim to assess and compare the effect of 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) and 70% alcohol versus 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHG) and 70% alcohol on the microbial count of the surgical site in the abdominal surgery.

 

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial study with parallel groups and pretest-posttest design was conducted between March 2017 and July 2018 at the educational-therapeutic centers of Iran University of Medical Sciences. This study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.

Out of 94 registered patients, 80 were included in the study and 14 were excluded. The participants were placed in the two groups of PVP-I and CHG (Figure 1). Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent an elective abdominal surgery were included. The exclusion criteria were: history of inflammatory skin diseases, history of sensitivity to antiseptics (alcohol, PVP-I, and CHG), presence of wounds or any visible skin lesion in the abdomen, immune system deficiency and taking immunosuppressive drugs. The sample size was estimated according to a previous study (19) and considering the reliability coefficient (Z1-a/2: 1.96), 80% power (Z1-B: 0.84), P0=0.6 and P1=0.285; so 38 people were estimated for each group. According to the possibility of sample dropout, 40 people were calculated in each group and a total of 80 participants were studied. The patients were allocated to two groups A and B by simple randomization method and by flipping a coin. Group A: abdominal skin preparation with 7.5% PVP-I, 70% alcohol and 10% PVP-I solutions. Group B: abdominal skin preparation with 2% CHG, 70% alcohol and 10% PVP-I solutions. Patients and assessors were blinded to the solution used.

After initiation of anesthesia and before preoperative skin preparation, two primary culture samples were taken by the researcher from the surgical site with a swab moistened with physiological serum. The first swab was smeared on the blood agar medium and the second swab sample was rubbed on the McConkey agar medium. Then, skin painting with antiseptic solution started by circulator nurse from the planned incision site with gentle pressure and proceeded to the periphery by widening circular motion for three minutes. After four minutes the solution was dried, the second culture samples was taken by the researcher with two swabs moistened with physiological serum. The first swab was smeared on blood agar medium and the second swab sample was smeared on McConkey agar medium. Then, secondary prep was done by 10% PVP-I by rubbing on the skin for two minutes (According to AST's recommendation, the minimum time for skin preparation with antiseptic solutions should be 5 minutes (20)). after four minutes the solution was dried, the third culture sample was collected using two swabs moistened with physiological serum. Then, the first swab was smeared on blood agar medium and the second swab sample was smeared on McConkey agar medium.

 

Enrollment

Follow-Up

Analysed (n=40)
- Excluded from analysis (n=0)

Analysis

Analysed (n=40)
- Excluded from analysis (n=0)

 

Lost to follow-up (n=0)

Discontinued intervention (n=0)

Lost to follow-up (n=0)

Discontinued intervention (n=0)

Allocated to intervention (n=40)

- Received allocated intervention (n=40)

 

Allocation

Allocated to control (n=40)

- Received allocated intervention (n=40)

 

Randomized (n=80)

 

Excluded (n=14)

- Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=8)

- Declined by surgeon (n=6)

 

Assessed for eligibility (n=94)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram of the study

 

Samples taken were immediately transferred to the microbiological laboratory, where the blood agar and McConkey agar medium were placed in an incubator under 37 degrees Celsius for 24 hours, and in case of no colony growth, they were incubated again for another 24 hours. The number of colonies grown in blood agar and McConkey agar medium was counted. Diagnostic and differential tests were performed for gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria to determine the type and gender of the bacteria. A code was assigned to each sample to avoid bias. Only the researcher knew which group each patient belonged to and the rest of the research team members were not aware of this issue.

The primary outcome was to compare the microbial count before and after skin preparation with antiseptic solutions and the secondary outcome was the difference between microbial count among the 2 types of skin preparation.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 16; IBM Corp, Armonk, N.Y, USA). Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine the relationships between categorical variables. The normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the mean microbial counts in the studied groups. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

 

Results

The majority of the participants were in the age range of 28-37 years (32.5%), male (50%), single (50%) with bachelor's degree (46.3%). Most people had insufficient income (86.3%) and were city residents (77.5%). The distribution of patients in terms of demographic variables was the same in both groups (Table 1).

 

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study participants

Variable

Group A

N (%)

Group B

N (%)

P-value*

Sex

   Male

   Female

 

21 (52.5)

19 (47.5)

 

20 (50)

20 (50)

X2= 0.050

df=1

0.823*

Age

   18-27

   28-37

   38-47

   48-57

   58-67

 

7 (17.5)

13 (32.5)

3 (7.5)

9 (22.5)

8 (20)

 

7 (17.5)

13 (32.5)

7 (17.5)

10 (25)

3 (7.5)

 

 

X2= 3.925

df=4

0.440**

Marital status

   Single

   Married

   Other

 

21 (52.5)

12 (30)

7 (17.5)

 

19 (47.5)

16 (40)

5 (12.5)

 

X2= 1.005

df=2

0.605*

Education

   Illiterate

   Diploma

   Bachelor's degree

   Master's degree

 

5 (12.5)

14 (35)

19 (47.5)

2 (50)

 

3 (7.5)

16 (40)

18 (45)

3 (7.5)

 

X2= 0.860

df=3

0.872**

                         * Chi-Square     **Fisher exact

 

According to the results presented in Table 2:

The mean count of micrococcus before the intervention in the two groups did not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.723). Moreover, this value after the intervention did not show a statistically significant difference in the two groups (p=0.320). The results showed that the mean count of micrococcus in group A significantly decreased by 14.2 ± 28.93 units after the intervention (p=0.0001). Also, the mean difference count of micrococcus in group B significantly decreased by 13.25±27.09 after the intervention (p=0.0001).

The mean count of streptococcus before the intervention in the two groups did not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.836). This value also after the intervention did not show a statistically significant difference in the two groups (p=0.999). The results showed that the mean count of streptococcus in group A significantly decreased by 3.45±7.91 units after the intervention (p=0.011). Also, the mean difference count of streptococcus in group B significantly decreased by 1.92±5.12 after the intervention (p=0.012).

Comparison of the mean count of coagulase-negative staphs before the intervention in groups A and B did not show a statistically significant difference (p=0.571). The mean count of coagulase-negative staphs after the intervention did not have a statistically significant difference in groups A and Bicantly decreased by 42.07±157.54 units after the intervention (p=0.0001). Also, the mean count of coagulase-negative staphs in group B significantly decreased by 29.8±49.6 units after the intervention (p=0.0001).

The mean count of diphtheroid before the intervention did not show a statistically significant difference in the two groups (p=0.562). Also, the mean count of diphtheroid after the intervention was significantly different in the two groups (p=0.317). The results showed that the mean count of diphtheroid in group A significantly decreased by 6.8±3.82 units after the intervention (p=0.0001). Also, the mean difference count of diphtheroid in group B significantly decreased by 16.55±6.07 after the intervention (p=0.0001).

Table 2. Mean of microorganisms at the surgical site scores in the two groups

 

Group A

Group B

Between group test**

Mean±SD

Median

(IR)

Mean±SD

Median

(IR)

Micrococcus

Before

14.3±28.94

1 (11.50)

13.3±27.07

0 (0)

P=0.723

Z= -0.355

After initial

0.1±0.37

0 (0)

0.05±0.31

0 (0)

P=0.320

Z= -0.994

Mean difference

14.2±28.93

-1 (11.50)

13.25±27.09

-1 (10)

 

Within group test*

P=0.0001

Z= -4.11

 

P=0.0001

Z= -4.38

 

 

Streptococcus

Before

3.45±7.91

0 (0)

1.92±5.12

0 (0)

 

P=0.836

Z= -0.207

After initial

0

0 (0)

0

0 (0)

P=0.999

Z= 0.00

Mean difference

3.45±7.91

0 (0)

1.92±5.12

0 (0)

 

Within group test*

P= 0.011

Z= -2.53

 

P= 0.012

Z= -2.52

 

 

Coagulase-negative staphs

Before

42.07±157.54

10 (18.75)

29.8±49.6

10 (18)

 

P=0.571

Z= -0.576

After initial

0

0 (0)

0.05±0.31

0 (0)

P=0.317

Z= -1.000

 

Mean difference

42.07±157.54

-10 (18.75)

29.75±49.42

-22 (18)

 

Within group test*

P=0.0001

Z= -4.94

 

P= 0.0001

Z= -5.24

 

 

Diphtheroid

Before

3.85±6.82

0 (6.25)

6.07±16.55

0 (4)

P=0.562

Z= -0.580

After initial

0.025±0.15

0 (0)

0

0 (0)

P=0.317

Z= -1.000

 

Mean difference

3.82±6.8

0 (6.25)

6.07±16.55

-0.5 (4)

 

Within group test*

P=0.0001

Z= -3.52

 

P=0.0001

Z= -3.92

 

 

Staphylococcus aureus

Before

1.02±4.78

0 (0)

1.07±4.80

0 (0)

P=0.816

Z= -0.233

After initial

0

0 (0)

0

0 (0)

P=0.999

Z=0.000

 

Mean difference

1.02±4.78

0 (0)

1.07±4.8

0 (0)

 

Within group test*

P=0.027

Z= -2.21

 

P= 0.042

Z= -2.03

 

 

Bacillus spore-forming

Before

0.65±3.16

0 (0)

0.45±2.37

0 (0)

P=0.492

T= -0.687

After initial

0

0 (0)

0

0 (0)

P=0.999

Z= 0.000

 

Mean difference

0.65±3.16

-0.11 (0)

0.45±2.37

0 (0)

 

Within group test*

P=0.024

Z= -2.26

 

P=0.059

Z= -1.89

 

 

*Wilcoxon   ** Mann–Whitney      

 

The mean count of staphylococcus aureus before the intervention and also after the intervention did not show a statistically significant difference in the two groups (p=0.816 and p=0.999, repectively). The results showed that the mean count of staphylococcus aureus in group A significantly decreased by 4.78±1.02 units after the intervention (p=0.027). Also, the mean difference count of staphylococcus aureus in group B significantly decreased by 4.8±1.07 after the intervention (p=0.042).

The mean count of bacillus spore-forming before the intervention and also after the intervention  did not show a statistically significant difference in the two groups (p=0.492 and p=0.999, respectively). The results showed that the mean count of bacillus spore-forming in group A significantly decreased by 3.16±0.65 units after the intervention  (p=0.024). Also, the mean difference count of bacillus spore-forming in group B significantly decreased by 2.37 ± 0.45 after the intervention (p=0.059).

 

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effect of 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) and 70% alcohol versus 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHG) and 70% alcohol on the microbial count of the surgical site in the abdominal surgery. The result of this study revealed that there is not a significant difference in mean skin microbial count after skin preparation with PVP-I-alcohol and 10% PVP-I solution compared with CHG-alcohol and 10% PVP-I solution. The findings complemented previous studies that found no evidence to suggest one antiseptic preference over the other (21-23), but it was inconsistent with some other studies (24,25). Dorfel et al. (2021) showed that alcohol-based povidone-iodine had more substantial benefits over alcohol-based chlorhexidine concerning the anaerobic flora of the shoulder (24). Also, the results of Peel et al.'s study (2019) showed that iodine-alcohol had greater efficacy than chlorhexidine-alcohol for preventing surgical site infection (25). It seems that this different finding is due to the essence of two antiseptic groups which had similar effects on the microorganisms due to their broad-spectrum and fast-acting effects and were able to significantly reduce the microbial count.

Beside the present study's main result, although there was not a significant difference in microbial count between the two groups, skin preparation with CHG-alcohol and 10% PVP-I solution was better to reduce microbial count. Similar to our study, the study of Obamuyide et al. (2015) showed that both PVP-I and CHG-alcohol are effective on reducing bacterial colonization of the skin of orthopaedic patients after skin preparation. However, CHG-alcohol is better to eradicate aerobes from the skin of orthopaedic patients and demonstrates a more persistent action on anaerobes even to the post-closure period and suppress the generally observed increase in skin organism counts which occur during surgery (26).

Our study indicated that there was a significant difference between the mean microbial count before and after the skin preparation with PVP-I-alcohol and 10% PVP-I solution; the result is consistent with the findings of the study of some studies (13,14,22,27-29). Our findings also demonstrate that the mean microbial count was significantly different before and after skin preparation with CHG-alcohol and 10% PVP-I solution. Similar to our finding, the results of the studies of kavi et al.(2017) (19), Rao et al.(2017) (30), Cheng et al.(2009) (31), Broach et al.(2017) (32) and Boisson et al.(2019) (28) showed the same result. It seems that this finding is due to the fact that these antiseptics have been able to effectively affect the microorganisms and significantly reduce the microbial count. Non-cooperation of some patients and surgeons in sampling was the limitation of the current research, so it was tried to obtain the consent of the participants by fully explaining that all antiseptics are approved. It is suggested that these approved antiseptics should be examined in other areas of the body as well as in terms of economic efficiency, skin complications, etc.

 

Implications for practice

This study did not demonstrate an overall superiority of CHG-alcohol and 10% PVP-I over PVP-I-alcohol and 10% PVP-I skin preparation solution or vice versa. Both groups can be used to prepare patients' skin before abdominal surgery due to the affordability conditions and availability.

Acknowledgments

This article is the result of a Master thesis project in the operating room technologyResearch Vice-Chancellor of Iran University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study as ethics code number IR.IUMS.REC.1397.1125 and was registered in IRCT as Trial Registration No: IRCT20190821044575N1. The researchers express their gratitude to Iran University of Medical Sciences authorities, doctors and staffs of Hazrat Rasoole Akram educational-therapeutic and Firuzgar hospitals and patients who participated in the study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Thompson KM, Oldenburg WA, Deschamps C, Rupp WC, Smith CD. Chasing zero: the drive to eliminate surgical site infections. Annals of surgery. 2011;254(3):430-7.
  2. Liu LQ, Mehigan S. The effects of surgical hand scrubbing protocols on skin integrity and surgical site infection rates: a systematic review. AORN journal. 2016;103(5):468-82.
  3. Badia JM CA, Petrosillo N, Hudson PM, Mitchell SA, Crosby C. Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2017;96(1):1-15.
  4. Adapa AR, Linzey JR, Moriguchi F, Daou BJ, Khalsa SSS, Ponnaluri-Wears S, et al. Risk factors and morbidity associated with surgical site infection subtypes following adult neurosurgical procedures. British journal of neurosurgery. 2021:1-7.
  5. Casper DS, Zmistowski B, Hollern DA, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Schroeder GD, et al. The effect of postoperative spinal infections on patient mortality. Spine. 2018;43(3):223-7.
  6. Álvarez CA, Guevara CE, Valderrama SL, Sefair CF, Jimenez MF, Soria CG, et al. Practical Recommendations for Preoperative Skin Antisepsis. Infectio. 2018;22(1):46-54.
  7. Anggrahita T, Wardhana A, Sudjatmiko G. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine as preoperative skin preparation to prevent surgical site infection: a meta-analysis. Medical Journal of Indonesia. 2017;26(1):54-61.
  8. Infection WGGftPoSS. WHO Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection 2016 [Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/250680/9789241549882-eng.pdf.
  9. Weinstein RA, Milstone AM, Passaretti CL, Perl TM. Chlorhexidine: expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2008;46(2):274-81.
  10. Durani P, Leaper D. Povidone–iodine: use in hand disinfection, skin preparation and antiseptic irrigation. International Wound Journal. 2008;5(3):376-87.
  11. Bazzi A, Chamanzari H, Bagheri M, Mazloum S, Forozan far H. Effect of combination of alcohol and Betadine on the severity of inflammation in the vascular access site in hemodialysis patients. Evidence Based Care. 2015;4(4):77-86.
  12. Malekzadeh J, Forouzanfar H, Mazluom Sr, Nazemian F, Bazzi A. Comparison of the effect of rinsing the vascular access site for hemodialysis with Betadine scrub and soap by patient on the frequency and onset of local inflammation and infection. Evidence Based Care. 2015;4(4):59-68.
  13. Mimoz O, Lucet J-C, Kerforne T, Pascal J, Souweine B, Goudet V, et al. Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone iodine–alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular-catheter-related infection (CLEAN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, two-by-two factorial trial. The Lancet. 2015;386(10008):2069-77.
  14. Patrick S, McDowell A, Lee A, Frau A, Martin U, Gardner E, et al. Antisepsis of the skin before spinal surgery with povidone iodine-alcohol followed by chlorhexidine gluconate-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol applied twice for the prevention of contamination of the wound by bacteria: a randomised controlled trial. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2017;99(10):1354-65.
  15. Athokpam Lenin Luwang PKS, Minakshi Rohilla, Pooja Sikka, Lekha Saha, Vikas Gautam. Chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine as preoperative skin antisepsis for prevention of surgical site infection in cesarean delivery—a pilot randomized control trial. Trials. 2021;22(540).
  16. Tolcher MC, Whitham MD, El-Nashar SA, Clark SL. Chlorhexidine–Alcohol Compared with Povidone–Iodine Preoperative Skin Antisepsis for Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Perinatology. 2019;36:118-23.
  17. Sáenz-Jalón M, Sarabia-Cobo CM, Roscales Bartolome E, Santiago Fernández M, Vélez B, Escudero M, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial on the Use of Antiseptic Solutions for the Pin-Site Care of External Fixators: Chlorhexidine–Alcohol Versus Povidone–Iodine. Journal of trauma nursing. 2020;27(3):146-50.
  18. Gezer S, Yalvaç HM, Güngör K, Yücesoy İ. Povidone-iodine vs chlorhexidine alcohol for skin preparation in malignant and premalignant gynaecologic diseases: A randomized controlled study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2020;244:45-50.
  19. Kavi E, Aarabi A, Sadeqi R, Hashemi SM, Kolahdoozan M, Fazeli H. Effects of Chlorhexidine 2 in Alcohol 70 and Povidone-Iodine 10 on Skin Colonization after Surgical Prep. Pharmacophore. 2017;8(6S): e-1173329.
  20. Association of Surgical Technologists. AST Standards of Practice for Skin Prep of the Surgical Patient 2008.
  21. Dior UP, Kathurusinghe S, Cheng C, Reddington C, Daley AJ, Ang C,  et al. Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery. JAMA surgery. 2020;155(9):807-15.
  22. Shadid MB, Speth MJ, Voorn GP, Wolterbeek N. Chlorhexidine 0.5%/70% Alcohol and Iodine 1%/70% Alcohol Both Reduce Bacterial Load in Clean Foot Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2019;58(2):278-81.
  23. Springel EH, Wang XY, Sarfoh VM, Stetzer BP, Weight SA, Mercer BM. A randomized open-label controlled trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol vs povidone-iodine for cesarean antisepsis: the CAPICA trial. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2017;217(4):463-e1.
  24. Dörfel D, Maiwald M, Daeschlein G, Müller G, Hudek R, Assadian O, et al. Comparison of the antimicrobial efcacy of povidone-iodine-alcohol versus chlorhexidine-alcohol for surgical skin preparation on the aerobic and anaerobic skin fora of the shoulder region. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2021;10:1-9.
  25. Peel TN, Dowsey MM, Buising KL, Cheng AC, Choong PF. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for surgical site skin preparation in elective arthroplasty (ACAISA) study: cluster randomised controlled trial. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2019; 25(10):1239-45.
  26. Obamuyide H, Omololu A, Oluwatosin O, Ifesanya A, Fasina A. Comparison of Chlorhexidine-Alcohol and Providone Iodine Skin Preparation Skin Preparation Solutions in Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery at An African Tertiary Hospital. East and Central African Journal of Surgery. 2015;20(2):80-7.
  27. Guenezan J, Drugeon B, O’Neill R, Caillaud D, Sénamaud C, Pouzet C, et al. Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone iodine–alcohol, combined or not with use of a bundle of new devices, for prevention of short-term peripheral venous catheter-related infectious complications and catheter failure: an open-label, single-centre, randomised, four-parallel group, two-by-two factorial trial: CLEAN 3 protocol study. BMJ open. 2019;9(4):e028549.
  28. Boisson M, Corbi P, Kerforne T, Camilleri L, Debauchez M, Demondion P, et al. Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing 2% chlorhexidine–70% isopropanol and 5% povidone iodine–69% ethanol for skin antisepsis in reducing surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery: the CLEAN 2 study protocol. BMJ open. 2019;9(6):e026929.
  29. Birnbach DJ, Meadows W, Stein DJ, Murray O, Thys DM, Sordillo EM. Comparison of povidone iodine and DuraPrep, an iodophor-in-isopropyl alcohol solution, for skin disinfection prior to epidural catheter insertion in parturients. Anesthesiology: The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2003;98(1):164-9.
  30. Rao BD, Rao MK. Comparison of Chlorhexidine with povidone–iodine solution for skin disinfection in epidural and central venoues catheter insertion. International Journal of Advances in Medicine. 2017;3(1):101-5.
  31. Cheng K, Robertson H, St. Mart JP, Leanord A, McLeod I. Quantitative analysis of bacteria in forefoot surgery: a comparison of skin preparation techniques. Foot & ankle international. 2009;30(10):992-7.
  32. Broach RB, Paulson EC, Scott C, Mahmoud NN. Randomized controlled trial of two alcohol-based preparations for surgical site antisepsis in colorectal surgery. Annals of surgery. 2017;266(6):946-51.
Evidence Based Care
Volume 14, Issue 1
April 2024
Pages 70-77

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics