Original Article
Chlorhexidine–Alcohol versus Povidone–Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis
N Engl J Med 2010; 362:18-26January 7, 2010
- Abstract
Background
Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. We hypothesized that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine–alcohol is more protective against infection than is povidone–iodine.
Methods
We randomly assigned adults undergoing clean-contaminated surgery in six hospitals to preoperative skin preparation with either chlorhexidine–alcohol scrub or povidone–iodine scrub and paint. The primary outcome was any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical-site infections.
Results
A total of 849 subjects (409 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 440 in the povidone–iodine group) qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the povidone–iodine group (9.5% vs. 16.1%; P=0.004; relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was significantly more protective than povidone–iodine against both superficial incisional infections (4.2% vs. 8.6%, P=0.008) and deep incisional infections (1% vs. 3%, P=0.05) but not against organ-space infections (4.4% vs. 4.5%). Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained in the study during the 30-day follow-up period. Adverse events were similar in the two study groups.
Conclusions
Preoperative cleansing of the patient's skin with chlorhexidine–alcohol is superior to cleansing with povidone–iodine for preventing surgical-site infection after clean-contaminated surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00290290.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Screening, Randomization, and Follow-up of Study Participants.Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for Freedom from Surgical-Site Infection (Intention-to-Treat Population).Article Activity
- Article
Despite the implementation of preoperative preventive measures, which include skin cleansing with povidone–iodine, surgical-site infection occurs in 300,000 to 500,000 patients who undergo surgery in the United States each year.1-6 Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens, it is conceivable that improving skin antisepsis would decrease surgical-site infections.7 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 2% chlorhexidine-based preparations be used to cleanse the site of insertion of vascular catheters.8 However, the CDC has not issued a recommendation as to which antiseptics should be used preoperatively to prevent postoperative surgical-site infection in the 27 million operations performed annually in the United States.9 Furthermore, no published randomized studies have examined the effect of one antiseptic preparation as compared with another on the incidence of surgical-site infection. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine–alcohol with that of povidone–iodine for preventing surgical-site infections.
Methods
Study Design
We conducted this prospective, randomized clinical trial between April 2004 and May 2008 at six university–affiliated hospitals in the United States. The institutional review board at each hospital approved the study protocol, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrollment. This investigator-initiated trial was conceived by the first author, who also acted as the study sponsor, recruited the sites, gathered the data, wrote the first and final versions of the manuscript, and decided in consultation with the other authors to submit the paper for publication. All authors vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data. One of the authors, who is a statistician, analyzed the data. The single author from Cardinal Health (manufacturer of the antiseptic agents studied) substantially contributed to the design and conception of the study and critically revised the manuscript but played no role in data collection or analysis. All other authors had full access to the data and substantially contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript.
Patients
Patients 18 years of age or older who were undergoing clean-contaminated surgery (i.e., colorectal, small intestinal, gastroesophageal, biliary, thoracic, gynecologic, or urologic operations performed under controlled conditions without substantial spillage or unusual contamination) were eligible for enrollment. Exclusion criteria were a history of allergy to chlorhexidine, alcohol, or iodophors; evidence of infection at or adjacent to the operative site; and the perceived inability to follow the patient's course for 30 days after surgery.
Interventions
Enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to have the skin at the surgical site either preoperatively scrubbed with an applicator that contained 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol (ChloraPrep, Cardinal Health) or preoperatively scrubbed and then painted with an aqueous solution of 10% povidone–iodine (Scrub Care Skin Prep Tray, Cardinal Health). More than one chlorhexidine–alcohol applicator was used if the coverage area exceeded 33 by 33 cm. To help match the two groups and address potential interhospital differences, randomization was stratified by hospital with the use of computer-generated randomization numbers without blocking.
Efficacy Outcomes
The primary end point of the study was the occurrence of any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The operating surgeon became aware of which intervention had been assigned only after the patient was brought to the operating room. Both the patients and the site investigators who diagnosed surgical-site infection on the basis of criteria developed by the CDC9 remained unaware of the group assignments. Secondary end points included the occurrence of individual types of surgical-site infections. These were classified as superficial incisional infection (which involved only skin and subcutaneous tissue and excluded stitch-related abscesses), deep incisional infection (which involved fascia and muscle), or organ-space infection (which involved any organ or space other than the incised layer of body wall that was opened or manipulated during the operation).9
Clinical Assessment
Preoperative evaluation included a medical history taking, physical examination, and routine hematologic and blood chemical laboratory tests. The surgical site and the patient's vital signs were assessed at least once a day during hospitalization, on discharge, at the time of follow-up evaluation, and whenever surgical-site infection occurred. After discharge, the investigators called the patients once a week during the 30-day follow-up period and arranged for prompt clinical evaluation if infection was suspected. Whenever surgical-site infection was suspected or diagnosed, clinically relevant microbiologic samples were cultured. Investigators who were unaware of the patients' group assignments assessed the seriousness of all adverse events and determined whether they were related to the study.
Statistical Analysis
The average baseline rate of surgical-site infection at the six participating hospitals was 14% after clean-contaminated surgery with povidone–iodine skin preparation, and we estimated that substituting chlorhexidine–alcohol for povidone–iodine would reduce this rate to 7%. Therefore, we planned to enroll approximately 430 patients in each study group who could be evaluated in order for the study to have 90% power to detect a significant difference in the rates of surgical-site infection between the two groups, at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 or less.
The criteria for including patients in the intention-to-treat analysis included randomization and the possibility of applying each of the study antiseptic preparations (which required performance of surgery). Inclusion in the per-protocol analysis required the application of the study preparation before clean-contaminated surgery and completion of the 30-day follow-up. An independent data and safety monitoring board composed of an infectious-disease physician, a surgeon, and a statistician met annually to review the conduct of the study. No formal criteria were set for stopping the study.
The significance of differences between the two study groups in terms of patient characteristics was determined with the use of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. For efficacy outcomes, we compared the proportions of patients in the two study groups who could be evaluated and who had any type of surgical-site infection, using Fisher's exact test and calculating the relative risk of infection and 95% confidence intervals. The consistency of the effects of the study intervention on infections across different types of surgery was examined with the use of an interaction test. To determine whether the results were consistent across the six participating hospitals, a prespecified Breslow–Day test for homogeneity was performed. To compare the proportions of patients in the two study groups who were free of surgical-site infection as a function of the length of time since surgery, we performed log-rank tests on Kaplan–Meier estimates based on analyses in which data for patients who did not have infections were censored 30 days after surgery. Both the frequency of isolating certain organisms and categories of organisms and the incidence of adverse and serious adverse events were compared between the study groups with the use of Fisher's exact test. All reported P values are based on two-tailed tests of significance and were not adjusted for multiple testing.
We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses to assess whether risk factors contributed to the occurrence of surgical-site infection. The univariate analysis for categorical factors was performed with the use of Fisher's exact test. For continuous factors, we used a single-variable logistic-regression model that involved generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for hospital site as a random effect. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis that also adjusted for the hospital site as a random effect (by means of GEE) was performed to assess factors deemed significant (P≤0.10) by univariate analysis or considered clinically important. The assessed risk factors were prespecified in the protocol, and the statistical methods were preplanned except for the inclusion of hospital site as a random effect. Since some types of surgery did not result in infection in either study group, a dichotomous variable — “abdominal” surgery (including colorectal, biliary, small intestinal, and gastroesophageal operations) versus “nonabdominal” surgery (including thoracic, gynecologic, and urologic operations) — was created for the GEE logistic-regression model.
Results
Patients
A total of 897 patients were randomly assigned to a study group: 431 to the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 466 to the povidone–iodine group (Figure 1Figure 1
Screening, Randomization, and Follow-up of Study Participants.). Of the 849 patients who qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis, 409 received chlorhexidine–alcohol and 440 received povidone–iodine. Thirty-six patients were excluded from the per-protocol analysis: 25 underwent clean rather than clean-contaminated surgery, 4 dropped out of the study 1 or 2 days after surgery, and 7 died before completion of the 30-day follow-up (4 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 3 in the povidone–iodine group). Therefore, 813 patients (391 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 422 in the povidone–iodine group) were included in the per-protocol analyses. The patients in the two study groups were similar with respect to demographic characteristics, coexisting illnesses, risk factors for infection, antimicrobial exposure, and duration and types of surgery (Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the Patients (Intention-to-Treat Population)., and Table 1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). All patients received systemic prophylactic antibiotics within 1 hour before the initial incision, and there were no significant differences in the type or number of antibiotics given to the two study groups, even when only patients who underwent colorectal surgery were considered (Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix).Rates of Infection
For the patients in the intention-to-treat population, the overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group (9.5%) than in the povidone–iodine group (16.1%, P=0.004) (Table 2Table 2
Proportion of Patients with Surgical-Site Infection, According to Type of Infection (Intention-to-Treat Population).). The relative risk of any surgical-site infection among patients whose skin was preoperatively cleansed with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.85). Similarly, chlorhexidine–alcohol was associated with significantly fewer superficial incisional infections (relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.84) and deep incisional infections (relative risk, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.01). However, there were no significant differences between the two study groups in the incidence of organ-space infection (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.80) or sepsis from surgical-site infection (relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.29). The per-protocol analysis yielded similar efficacy results. The Kaplan–Meier estimates of the risk of surgical-site infection (Figure 2Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for Freedom from Surgical-Site Infection (Intention-to-Treat Population).) showed a significantly longer time to infection after surgery in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the povidone–iodine group (P=0.004 by the log-rank test).The interaction between treatment group and type of surgery (abdominal vs. nonabdominal) was included in a logistic-regression model with the main effects of group and surgery type and was found not to be significant (P=0.41). When considered separately in a subgroup analysis (Table 3Table 3
Proportion of Patients with Surgical-Site Infection, According to Type of Surgery (Intention-to-Treat Population).), the rate of infection after abdominal surgery was 12.5% in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group versus 20.5% in the povidone–iodine group (95% CI for the absolute difference [chlorhexidine–alcohol minus povidone–iodine], −13.9 to −2.1 percentage points). For patients undergoing nonabdominal surgery, the rate of infection was 1.8% in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group versus 6.1% in the povidone–iodine group (95% CI for the absolute difference, −7.9 to 2.6 percentage points).Both the intention-to-treat analysis (Table 3) and the per-protocol analysis showed lower rates of surgical-site infection in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the povidone–iodine group for each of the seven types of operations studied. Although the trial was not powered to compare the rates of infection for subcategories of patients, infection occurred significantly less often in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the povidone–iodine group in the intention-to-treat analysis for patients who underwent small intestinal surgery (P=0.04) or abdominal surgery (P=0.009) or who did not shower preoperatively (P=0.02).
The Breslow–Day tests indicated homogeneity in showing no significant differences between hospitals with respect to the incidence of either any type of surgical-site infection (P=0.35) or individual types of infection (P≥0.19). Even so, we accounted for hospital site in all logistic-regression models by including this term as a random effect through the use of GEE.
Analyses of Risk Factors
The multivariate logistic-regression analysis identified the following risk factors for surgical-site infection in the intention-to-treat population: use of povidone–iodine, abdominal surgery, alcohol abuse, liver cirrhosis, cancer, diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, gastrointestinal disease, longer duration of surgery, longer duration of placement of surgical drain, and preoperative shower with povidone–iodine (Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). Since an analysis of risk factors other than the assigned intervention constitutes an exploratory analysis, which involves multiple simultaneous statistical tests, it could inflate the probability of a false positive finding (type II error).
Microbiologic Causes of Infection
Culture of the surgical site in 60 of 61 infected patients yielded growth of organisms (a total of 107 isolates), and similar proportions of infected patients in the two study groups (23 of 39 [59%] in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 37 of 71 [52%] in the povidone–iodine group) had an identifiable microbiologic cause of infection (Table 4 in the Supplementary Appendix). Gram-positive aerobic bacteria (63 isolates) outnumbered gram-negative aerobic bacteria (25 isolates) by a factor of 2.5, and 38% of cultures were polymicrobial. There were no significant differences in the frequency of isolating certain categories of organisms or particular organisms in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group (total of 44 isolates) as compared with the povidone–iodine group (total of 63 isolates), with the exception of streptococci, which were less common in the former group (1 of 44 [2.3%] vs. 10 of 63 [15.9%], P=0.03).
Adverse Events
In the intention-to-treat analysis, adverse events occurred in equal proportions among the patients in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and the povidone–iodine group (228 of 409 [55.7%] and 256 of 440 [58.2%], respectively), as did serious adverse events (72 of 409 [17.6%] and 70 of 440 [15.9%], respectively) (Table 4Table 4
Clinical Adverse Events (Intention-to-Treat Population)., and Table 5 in the Supplementary Appendix). Findings were similar in the per-protocol analysis. Three patients (0.7%) in each study group had an adverse event (pruritus, erythema, or both around the surgical wound) that was judged to be related to the study drugs; however, no serious adverse events were judged to be related to the study drugs. There were no cases of fire or chemical skin burn in the operating room. A total of seven patients died: four (1.0%) in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group who did not have surgical-site infections and three (0.7%) in the povidone–iodine group who died from sepsis due to organ-space infection.Discussion
Randomized studies have compared the efficacy of different types10-13 or doses14,15 of systemic antibiotics for preventing surgical-site infection but not the effect of preoperative skin antisepsis. In this randomized study, the application of chlorhexidine–alcohol reduced the risk of surgical-site infection by 41% as compared with the most common practice in the United States of using aqueous povidone–iodine.7 This degree of protection is similar to the 49% reduction in the risk of vascular catheter–related bloodstream infection in a meta-analysis that showed the superiority of skin disinfection with chlorhexidine-based solutions versus 10% povidone–iodine.16 Although the overall rates of surgical-site infection of 10 to 16% in this study are higher than those reported in some previous studies,17,18 they are similar to the prestudy rates at the participating hospitals and those reported in other studies13 and are lower than the rates reported in trials that used the CDC definition of infection and had adequate follow-up,11,12,19 as we did in this trial. On the basis of our findings, the estimated number of patients who would need to undergo skin preparation with chlorhexidine–alcohol instead of povidone–iodine in order to prevent one case of surgical-site infection is approximately 17.
Although both the antiseptic preparations we studied possess broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity,9 the superior clinical protection provided by chlorhexidine–alcohol is probably related to its more rapid action, persistent activity despite exposure to bodily fluids, and residual effect. 20 The superior clinical efficacy of chlorhexidine–alcohol in our study correlates well with previous microbiologic studies showing that chlorhexidine-based antiseptic preparations are more effective than iodine-containing solutions in reducing the bacterial concentration in the operative field for vaginal hysterectomy21 and foot-and-ankle surgery.22,23 Although the use of flammable alcohol-based products in the operating room poses the risk, though small, of fire or chemical skin burn, no such adverse events occurred in this study or the other studies. 21-23
In this trial we universally enforced standard-of-care preventive measures (e.g., administering systemic prophylactic antibiotics within 1 hour before the first incision was made and, if needed, clipping hair immediately before surgery),9,24 but hospitals were allowed to continue their preexisting practices, which offer potential but not established protective efficacy (e.g., preoperative showering).25 However, we controlled the effect of differences in hospital practices by using hospital-stratified randomization, which ensured close matching of the two study groups as well as trial results that are applicable to a broadly representative population of hospitalized patients.
Because antiseptics act only against organisms that reside on the patient's integument, the overall superior protection afforded by chlorhexidine–alcohol was attributed primarily to a reduction in the rates of superficial and deep incisional infections that were caused mostly by gram-positive skin flora. Since two thirds of surgical-site infections are confined to the incision,9,11 optimizing skin antisepsis before surgery could result in a significant clinical benefit.
Dr. Darouiche reports receiving research and educational grants from Cardinal Health; Dr. Wall, receiving a research grant from Cardinal Health; Dr. Itani, receiving consulting fees from Klein and Company and a research grant from Cardinal Health; Dr. Otterson, receiving consulting fees and a research grant from Cardinal Health; Dr. Webb, receiving a research grant from Cardinal Health; Dr. Awad, receiving consulting and lecture fees from Cardinal Health; Ms. Crosby, being employed by Cardinal Health; and Dr. Berger, receiving a research grant from Cardinal Health. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
From the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine (R.O.D., S.S.A., A.A., D.H.B.), and Ben Taub General Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine (M.J.W., M.M.C., H.J.M.) — all in Houston; Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and Boston University Medical School, Boston (K.M.F.I.); Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (M.F.O.); Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta (A.L.W.); and Cardinal Health, Leawood (C.T.C.), and Washburn University, Topeka (M.C.M.) — both in Kansas.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Darouiche at the Center for Prostheses Infection, Baylor College of Medicine, 1333 Moursund Ave., Suite A221, Houston, TX 77030, or at rdarouiche@aol.com.
- References
References
1
Wolf JS Jr ,Bennett CJ ,Dmochowski RR ,Hollenbeck BK ,Pearle MS ,Schaeffer AJ . Best practice policy statements on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 2008;179:1379-1390[Erratum, J Urol 2008;180:2262-3.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Hawn MT ,Itani KM ,Gray SH ,Vick CC ,Henderson W ,Houston TK . Association of timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics for major surgical procedures and surgical site infection. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:814-819
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Belda FJ ,Aguilera L ,Garciade la Asuncion J , et al. Supplemental perioperative oxygen and the risk of surgical wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2035-2042[Erratum, JAMA 2005;294:2973.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Kurz A ,Sessler DI ,Lenhardt R . Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1209-1215
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline5
Yasunaga H ,Ide H ,Imamura T ,Ohe K . Accuracy of economic studies on surgical site infection. J Hosp Infect 2007;65:102-107
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Kirkland KB ,Briggs JP ,Trivette SL ,Wilkinson WE ,Sexton DJ . The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725-730
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Napolitano LM . Decolonization of the skin of the patient and surgeon. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2006;7:Suppl 3:S3-S15
CrossRef | Medline8
O'Grady NP ,Alexander M ,Dellinger EP , et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:759-769
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Mangram AJ ,Horan TC ,Pearson ML ,Silver LC ,Jarvis WR . Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999: Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250-278
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Ishizaka K ,Kobayashi S ,Machida T ,Yoshida K . Randomized prospective comparison of fosfomycin and cefotiam for prevention of postoperative infection following urological surgery. J Infect Chemother 2007;13:324-331
CrossRef | Medline11
Itani KMF ,Wilson SE ,Awad SS ,Jensen EH ,Finn TS ,Abramson MA . Ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2640-2651
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
Milsom JW ,Smith DL ,Corman ML ,Howerton RA ,Yellin AE ,Luke DR . Double-blind comparison of single-dose alatrofloxacin and cefotetan as prophylaxis of infection following elective colorectal surgery. Am J Surg 1998;176:6A Suppl:46S-52S
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Arnaud JP ,Bellissant E ,Boissel P , et al. Single-dose amoxycillin-clavulanic acid vs. cefotetan for prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, prospective, randomized study. J Hosp Infect 1992;22:Suppl A:23-32
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Fujita S ,Saito N ,Yamada T , et al. Randomized, multicenter trial of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: single dose vs 3 doses of a second-generation cephalosporin without metronidazole and oral antibiotics. Arch Surg 2007;142:657-661
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Mohri Y ,Tonouchi H ,Kobayashi M , et al. Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis in gastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2007;94:683-688
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Chaiyakunapruk N ,Veenstra DL ,Lipsky BA ,Saint S . Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:792-801
Web of Science | Medline17
Uchiyama K ,Takifuji K ,Tani M , et al. Prevention of postoperative infections by administration of antimicrobial agents immediately before surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Hepatogastroenterology 2007;54:1487-1493
Web of Science | Medline18
Greif R ,Akca O ,Horn E-P ,Kurz A ,Sessler DI . Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 2000;342:161-167
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline19
Smith RL ,Bohl JK ,McElearney ST , et al. Wound infection after elective colorectal resection. Ann Surg 2004;239:599-605
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Denton GW. Chlorhexidine. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:321-36.
21
Culligan PJ ,Kubik K ,Murphy M ,Blackwell L ,Snyder J . A randomized trial that compared povidone iodine and chlorhexidine as antiseptics for vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:422-425
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Ostrander RV ,Botte MJ ,Brage ME . Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in foot and ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:980-985
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Bibbo C ,Patel DV ,Gehrmann RM ,Lin SS . Chlorhexidine provides superior skin decontamination in foot and ankle surgery: a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:204-208
CrossRef | Medline24
Tanner J ,Woodings D ,Moncaster K . Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;2:CD004122-CD004122
Medline25
Webster J ,Osborne S . Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:CD004985-CD004985
Medline
- Citing Articles (85)
Citing Articles
1
Lee T. Dresang, Lawrence Leeman. (2012) Cesarean Delivery. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 39:1, 145-165
CrossRef2
Ying Li, Michael Glotzbecker, Daniel Hedequist. (2012) Surgical site infection after pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
CrossRef3
Mayank Mohan Agarwal, Crystal R. Combs, Gopal H. Badlani. 2012. Equipment Set-up and Patient Handouts. , 1468-1480.
CrossRef4
Aaron K. Compton, Binit Shah, Salim M. Hayek. (2012) Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Review. Current Pain and Headache Reports 16:1, 35-42
CrossRef5
Sarah P. Conley, Benjamin R. Lee. 2012. Patient Preparation and Operating Room Set-up for Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery. , 783-792.
CrossRef6
A. Andrew Ray, R. John D'a. Honey. 2012. Prone, Lateral, and Flexed: Patient Positioning for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. , 152-172.
CrossRef7
David E. Freeman, Jörg A. Auer. 2012. Instrument Preparation, Sterilization, and Antiseptics. , 98-111.
CrossRef8
K. Lewalter, S. Lemmen. (2012) Prävention von Wundinfektionen. Der Orthopäde 41:1, 11-14
CrossRef9
Benjamin J. Ahern, Dean W. Richardson. 2012. Surgical Site Infection and the Use of Antimicrobials. , 68-84.
CrossRef10
Hiroshi Nakayama, Masayoshi Yagi, Shinichi Yoshiya, Yoshio Takesue. (2012) Micro-organism Colonization and Intraoperative Contamination in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
CrossRef11
Steven K. Wilson, J. William Costerton. (2012) Biofilm and Penile Prosthesis Infections in the Era of Coated Implants: A Review. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 9:1, 44-53
CrossRef12
Katherine A. O'Hanlan, Stacey Paris McCutcheon, John G. McCutcheon, Beth E. Charvonia. (2012) Single-Field Sterile-Scrub, Preparation, and Dwell for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
CrossRef13
Pamela Clark, Annnette Trickett, Damien Stark, Marcus Vowels. (2012) Factors affecting microbial contamination rate of cord blood collected for transplantation. Transfusionno-no
CrossRef14
John A. Stick. 2012. Preparation of the Surgical Patient, the Surgery Facility, and the Operating Team. , 111-122.
CrossRef15
Yutaka Nishihara, Takumi Kajiura, Yokota Katsuhiro, Hiroyoshi Kobayashi, Takashi Okubo. (2012) A Comparative Clinical Study Focusing on the Antimicrobial Efficacies of Chlorhexidine Gluconate Alcohol for Patient Skin Preparations. Journal of Infusion Nursing 35:1, 44-50
CrossRef16
Donald E. Fry. (2011) Fifty Ways To Cause Surgical Site Infections. Surgical Infections 12:6, 497-500
CrossRef17
D.J. Stinner, C.A. Krueger, B.D. Masini, J.C. Wenke. (2011) Time-dependent effect of chlorhexidine surgical prep. Journal of Hospital Infection 79:4, 313-316
CrossRef18
Paloma Toledo. (2011) Whatʼs New in Obstetric Anesthesia? The 2011 Gerard W. Ostheimer Lecture. Anesthesia & Analgesia 113:6, 1450-1458
CrossRef19
Omar A. Ibrahimi, Victoria Sharon, Daniel B. Eisen. (2011) Surgical-Site Infections and Routes of Bacterial Transfer: Which Ones Are Most Plausible?. Dermatologic Surgery 37:12, 1709-1720
CrossRef20
Kathryn J. Eagye, David P. Nicolau. (2011) Selection of Prophylactic Antimicrobial Agent May Affect Incidence of Infection in Small Bowel and Colorectal Surgery. Surgical Infections 12:6, 451-457
CrossRef21
Youmna Abi-Haidar, Kalpana Gupta, Judith Strymish, Sandra A. Williams, Kamal M.F. Itani. (2011) Factors Associated with Post-Operative Conversion to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Positivity or Infection in Initially MRSA-Negative Patients. Surgical Infections 12:6, 435-442
CrossRef22
Kyoung-Ho Song, Yu Min Kang, Hye-yun Sin, Su Won Yoon, Hye-kyung Seo, Seonheui Kwon, Myoung-jin Shin, Chong Bum Chang, Tae Kyun Kim, Hong Bin Kim. (2011) Outcome of cefazolin prophylaxis for total knee arthroplasty at an institution with high prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 15:12, e867-e870
CrossRef23
Nadia Juliet Khati, Joseph Gorodenker, Michael C. Hill. (2011) Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies of the Abdomen. Ultrasound Quarterly 27:4, 255-268
CrossRef24
M.R. Tatterton, S. Homer-Vanniasinkam. (2011) Infections in vascular surgery. Injury 42, S35-S41
CrossRef25
Melissa M. Boltz, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, Kathleen G. Julian, Gail Ortenzi, Peter W. Dillon. (2011) Hospital costs associated with surgical site infections in general and vascular surgery patients. Surgery 150:5, 934-942
CrossRef26
P. Lopes, E. Misbert. (2011) Les 10 commandements pour l’intervention césarienne. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 39:11, 601-602
CrossRef27
Charles C. Wykoff, Harry W. Flynn, Philip J. Rosenfeld. (2011) Prophylaxis for Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Injection: Antisepsis and Antibiotics. American Journal of Ophthalmology 152:5, 717-719.e2
CrossRef28
S. B. Rao, G. Vasquez, J. Harrop, M. Maltenfort, N. Stein, G. Kaliyadan, F. Klibert, R. Epstein, A. Sharan, A. Vaccaro, P. Flomenberg. (2011) Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Spinal Fusion Procedures: A Case-Control Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases 53:7, 686-692
CrossRef29
Christopher R. Ellis, Matthew J. Kolek. (2011) Rising infection rate in cardiac electronic device implantation; the role of the AIGISRx® antibacterial envelope in prophylaxis. Combination Products in Therapy 1:1,
CrossRef30
Harish Lavu, Matthew J. Klinge, Leonard J. Nowcid, Herbert E. Cohn, Dane R. Grenda, Patricia K. Sauter, Benjamin E. Leiby, Sean P. Croker, Eugene P. Kennedy, Charles J. Yeo. (2011) Perioperative Surgical Care Bundle Reduces Pancreaticoduodenectomy Wound Infections. Journal of Surgical Research
CrossRef31
Rachel O’Brien, Nicholas Pocock, Francesco Torella. (2011) Wound infection after reconstructive arterial surgery of the lower limbs: Risk factors and consequences. The Surgeon 9:5, 245-248
CrossRef32
Eunice Y. Huang, Catherine Chen, Fizan Abdullah, Gudrun Aspelund, Douglas C. Barnhart, Casey M. Calkins, Robert A. Cowles, Cynthia D. Downard, Adam B. Goldin, Steven L. Lee, Shawn D. St. Peter, Marjorie J. Arca. (2011) Strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter infections: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 46:10, 2000-2011
CrossRef33
Matthew K. Tollefson, Igor Frank, Matthew T. Gettman. (2011) Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Decreases the Incidence and Morbidity of Surgical Site Infections. Urology 78:4, 827-831
CrossRef34
A. Kramer. (2011) Hygiene am Operationstisch. Trauma und Berufskrankheit
CrossRef35
Michael R. Murray, Matthew D. Saltzman, Stephen M. Gryzlo, Michael A. Terry, Chase C. Woodward, Gordon W. Nuber. (2011) Efficacy of preoperative home use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 20:6, 928-933
CrossRef36
Evan M. Schwechter, David Folk, Avanish K. Varshney, Bettina C. Fries, Sun Jin Kim, David M. Hirsh. (2011) Optimal Irrigation and Debridement of Infected Joint Implants. The Journal of Arthroplasty 26:6, 109-113
CrossRef37
Casey H. Halpern, Grant W. Mitchell, Aaron Paul, Daniel R. Kramer, Kathryn R. McGill, Dana Buonacuore, Marie Kerr, Jurg L. Jaggi, John J. Stern, Gordon H. Baltuch. (2011) Self-administered preoperative antiseptic wash to prevent postoperative infection after deep brain stimulation. American Journal of Infection Control
CrossRef38
Cynthia T. Crosby. (2011) Concerns raised about literature review on skin prep agents. AORN 94:3, 223-225
CrossRef39
Walter Zingg, Bernhard Walder, Didier Pittet. (2011) Prevention of catheter-related infection. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 24:4, 377-384
CrossRef40
Kalpana Gupta, Judith Strymish, Youmna Abi-Haidar, Sandra A. Williams, Kamal M. F. Itani. (2011) Preoperative Nasal Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Status, Surgical Prophylaxis, and Risk-Adjusted Postoperative Outcomes in Veterans. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 32:8, 791-796
CrossRef41
John R. W. Kestle, Jay Riva-Cambrin, John C. Wellons, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, William E. Whitehead, Marion L. Walker, W. Jerry Oakes, James M. Drake, Thomas G. Luerssen, Tamara D. Simon, Richard Holubkov. (2011) A standardized protocol to reduce cerebrospinal fluid shunt infection: The Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network Quality Improvement Initiative. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 8:1, 22-29
CrossRef42
L. Djouhri-Bouktab, K. Alhanout, V. Andrieu, D. Raoult, J. M. Rolain, J. M. Brunel. (2011) Squalamine ointment for Staphylococcus aureus skin decolonization in a mouse model. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 66:6, 1306-1310
CrossRef43
Judith Seltzer. (2011) Skin Antisepsis: First Line of Defense Set Skin Preparation in Motion Before the Incision. Perioperative Nursing Clinics 6:2, 113-124
CrossRef44
Marc R. Mayberg. (2011) Editorial: Bone flap cultures. Journal of Neurosurgery 114:6, 1744-1745
CrossRef45
Shareef Jandali, Jonas A. Nelson, Seema S. Sonnad, David W. Low, Stephen J. Kovach, Liza C. Wu, Joseph M. Serletti. (2011) Breast Reconstruction with Free Tissue Transfer from the Abdomen in the Morbidly Obese. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 127:6, 2206-2213
CrossRef46
Charles E. Edmiston, Maureen Spencer, Brian D. Lewis, Kellie R. Brown, Peter J. Rossi, Cindy R. Henen, Heidi W. Smith, Gary R. Seabrook. (2011) Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infections: Did We Really Think SCIP Was Going to Lead Us to the Promised Land?. Surgical Infections 12:3, 169-177
CrossRef47
Hsiu-yin Chiang, Victoria M. Steelman, Jean M. Pottinger, Annette J. Schlueter, Daniel J. Diekema, Jeremy D.W. Greenlee, Matthew A. Howard, Loreen A. Herwaldt. (2011) Clinical significance of positive cranial bone flap cultures and associated risk of surgical site infection after craniotomies or craniectomies. Journal of Neurosurgery 114:6, 1746-1754
CrossRef48
Jiongwei Pan, Sarah J Fair, Dunmin Mao. (2011) Quantitative analysis of skeletal symmetric chlorhexidine in rat plasma using doubly charged molecular ions in LC–MS/MS detection. Bioanalysis 3:12, 1357-1368
CrossRef49
Luke T. Lavallée, Dean Fergusson, Rodney H. Breau. (2011) The role of randomized controlled trials in evidence-based urology. World Journal of Urology 29:3, 257-263
CrossRef50
J. Patrick Selph, Culley C. Carson. (2011) Penile Prosthesis Infection: Approaches to Prevention and Treatment. Urologic Clinics of North America 38:2, 227-235
CrossRef51
Bruce R. Kava, Prashanth Kanagarajah, Rajinikanth Ayyathurai. (2011) Contemporary Revision Penile Prosthesis Surgery Is Not Associated with a High Risk of Implant Colonization or Infection: A Single-Surgeon Series. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 8:5, 1540-1546
CrossRef52
Samantha Weed, Jamie A. Bastek, Mary D. Sammel, Mathew Beshara, Stacey Hoffman, Sindhu K. Srinivas. (2011) Comparing Postcesarean Infectious Complication Rates Using Two Different Skin Preparations. Obstetrics & Gynecology 117:5, 1123-1129
CrossRef53
Cesar E. Ercole, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Philippe E. Spiess. (2011) Update in the surgical principles and therapeutic outcomes of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
CrossRef54
Allen McDaniels, Donna Pittman. (2011) Is Skin Preparation Necessary Before Needling?: A Review. Medical Acupuncture 23:1, 7-11
CrossRef55
Charmaine E Lok, Michele H Mokrzycki. (2011) Prevention and management of catheter-related infection in hemodialysis patients. Kidney International 79:6, 587-598
CrossRef56
Ishai Levin, Jonia Amer-Alshiek, Amiram Avni, Joseph B. Lessing, Abed Satel, Benny Almog. (2011) Chlorhexidine and Alcohol Versus Povidone-Iodine for Antisepsis in Gynecological Surgery. Journal of Women's Health 20:3, 321-324
CrossRef57
Petar Erdeljan, Gerald Brock, Stephen E. Pautler. (2011) Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in Patients with Preexisting Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 8:1, 306-309
CrossRef58
Emily K. Shuman, Preeti N. Malani. (2011) Prevention and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Older Adults. Drugs & Aging 28:1, 13-26
CrossRef59
E. Pélissier, O. Armstrong, P. Ngo. (2011) Anatomia chirurgica e vie di accesso all’addome. EMC - Tecniche Chirurgiche Addominale 17:4, 1-16
CrossRef60
Tariq F. Al-Shaiji. (2011) Dual Implantation of Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Inflatable Penile Prostheses for Concurrent Male Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction. Advances in Urology 2011, 1-6
CrossRef61
E. Pélissier, O. Armstrong, P. Ngo. (2011) Anatomía quirúrgica y vías de acceso del abdomen. EMC - Técnicas Quirúrgicas - Aparato Digestivo 27:4, 1-16
CrossRef62
Patrick Duff. (2010) A Simple Checklist for Preventing Major Complications Associated With Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 116:6, 1393-1396
CrossRef63
Michele J. Anderson, Mary E. Horn, Ying-Chi Lin, Patrick J. Parks, Marnie L. Peterson. (2010) Efficacy of concurrent application of chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone iodine against six nosocomial pathogens. American Journal of Infection Control 38:10, 826-831
CrossRef64
John S. Cho, Caiyun Xuan, Lloyd S. Miller. (2010) Lucky Number Seven: RNase 7 Can Prevent Staphylococcus aureus Skin Colonization. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 130:12, 2703-2706
CrossRef65
Bryce W. Murray, Sergio Huerta, Sean Dineen, Thomas Anthony. (2010) Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Surgery: A Review of the Nonpharmacologic Tools of Prevention. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 211:6, 812-822
CrossRef66
Victor J. Hassid. (2010) Has the Time Come for Plastic Surgeons to Move from Povidone-Iodine to Chlorhexidine?. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126:6, 327e-328e
CrossRef67
James R. Hebl, Terese T. Horlocker. (2010) Dirty Rotten Scoundrels!. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 35:6, 485-487
CrossRef68
A. Noorani, N. Rabey, S. R. Walsh, R. J. Davies. (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. British Journal of Surgery 97:11, 1614-1620
CrossRef69
D. J. Leaper. (2010) Surgical-site infection. British Journal of Surgery 97:11, 1601-1602
CrossRef70
(2010) Scientific Surgery. British Journal of Surgery 97:11, 1747-1747
CrossRef71
John J. Mulcahy. (2010) Penile Prosthesis Infection: Progress in Prevention and Treatment. Current Urology Reports 11:6, 400-404
CrossRef72
W.-L. Lee, S.-F. Liao, W.-C. Lee, C.-H. Huang, C.-T. Fang. (2010) Soft tissue infections related to peripheral intravenous catheters in hospitalised patients: a case–control study. Journal of Hospital Infection 76:2, 124-129
CrossRef73
Gweneth B. Lazenby, David E. Soper. (2010) Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gynecologic Surgical Site Infections. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 37:3, 379-386
CrossRef74
Mark C. Alanis, Margaret S. Villers, Tameeka L. Law, Elizabeth M. Steadman, Christopher J. Robinson. (2010) Complications of cesarean delivery in the massively obese parturient. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203:3, 271.e1-271.e7
CrossRef75
Thomas J Sandora. (2010) Prevention of healthcare-associated infections in children: new strategies and success stories. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 23:4, 300-305
CrossRef76
David H. Berger, Courtney J. Balentine. (2010) Role of the VA in training surgical scientists. Surgery 148:2, 171-177
CrossRef77
Daniel I. Sessler. (2010) Neuraxial Anesthesia and Surgical Site Infection. Anesthesiology 113:2, 265-267
CrossRef78
Robert E. Fintelmann, Ayman Naseri. (2010) Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery. Drugs 70:11, 1395-1409
CrossRef79
Muhammad R Sohail, Omer W Sultan, Sania S Raza. (2010) Contemporary management of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 8:7, 831-839
CrossRef80
Ilker Uçkay, Stephan Harbarth, Robin Peter, Daniel Lew, Pierre Hoffmeyer, Didier Pittet. (2010) Preventing surgical site infections. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 8:6, 657-670
CrossRef81
Judene M. Bartley, Russell N. Olmsted, Janet Haas. (2010) Current views of health care design and construction: Practical implications for safer, cleaner environments. American Journal of Infection Control 38:5, S1-S12
CrossRef82
A. Sauerbrei, P. Wutzler. (2010) Virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine-containing disinfectants. Letters in Applied Microbiologyno-no
CrossRef83
(2010) Prevention of Surgical-Site Infections. New England Journal of Medicine 362:16, 1540-1544
Full Text84
D. Preciado. (2010) Pre-Op Skin Prep: Chlorhexidine-Alcohol vs Povidone-Iodine. AAP Grand Rounds 23:4, 38-38
CrossRef85
Wenzel, Richard P., . (2010) Minimizing Surgical-Site Infections. New England Journal of Medicine 362:1, 75-77
Full Text
- Letters
