MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of pediatric orthopedics · 2022
Jumping on the Bandwagon: Comparing the Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Versus Povidone-Iodine Preoperative Skin Antiseptic in Preventing Surgical Site Infections Following Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beber Samuel A, Sanborn Ryan M, Miller Patricia E, Kasser James R, Waters Peter M, Watkins Colyn J, Shore Benjamin J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adult literature has demonstrated chlorhexidine (CH) superiority at preventing surgical-site infections when compared with povidone-iodine (P-I). The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of postoperative infections after preoperative skin cleansing with either CH or P-I in pediatric orthopaedic surgery in an effort to identify superiority.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients (18 y and below) that underwent orthopaedic surgery at our institution in 2015, when P-I was the preoperative skin antisepsis of choice, and in 2018, when a change in protocol resulted in more frequent use of CH. Open fractures, infections, neuromuscular, and tumor surgeries were excluded. Orthopaedic surgeries were classified according to their subspecialty (sports-related/upper extremity, hip and lower extremity, trauma-related, or spine procedure). A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted within each procedure group on the basis of age, sex, and year using nearest-neighbor matching. Spine procedures could not be matched and were subsequently excluded from analyses.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching matched 1416 CH cases with 1416 P-I controls. The infection rate for CH was 19 infections per 1000 cases (27/1416; 1.9%) compared with an infection rate of 11 infections per 1000 cases (16/1416; 1.1%) for P-I subjects. No difference was detected in infection rate across preoperative skin antisepsis groups (P=0.12). Moreover, it was found that CH and P-I resulted in significantly equivalent infection rates to within ±1.5% (P=0.004). When stratified by procedure type, CH used in sports/upper extremity procedures resulted in 29 more infections per 1000 cases compared with P-I use (16/450; 3/450; P=0.005). No difference was detected in infection rate across CH and P-I skin antisepsis groups in lower extremity procedures (9/792; 8/792; P=1.00) or in trauma-related procedures (3/174; 4/174; P=1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: CH and P-I are both protective against postoperative infections after sports/upper extremity, lower extremity, and trauma-related pediatric orthopaedic procedures. P-I may provide improved protection over CH as a preoperative skin antisepsis in upper extremity and sports-related procedures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-comparative cohort.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients (18 y and below) that underwent orthopaedic surgery at our institution in 2015, when P-I was the preoperative skin antisepsis of choice, and in 2018, when a change in protocol resulted in more frequent use of CH. Open fractures, infections, neuromuscular, and tumor surgeries were excluded. Orthopaedic surgeries were classified according to their subspecialty (sports-related/upper extremity, hip and lower extremity, trauma-related, or spine procedure). A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted within each procedure group on the basis of age, sex, and year using nearest-neighbor matching. Spine procedures could not be matched and were subsequently excluded from analyses.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching matched 1416 CH cases with 1416 P-I controls. The infection rate for CH was 19 infections per 1000 cases (27/1416; 1.9%) compared with an infection rate of 11 infections per 1000 cases (16/1416; 1.1%) for P-I subjects. No difference was detected in infection rate across preoperative skin antisepsis groups (P=0.12). Moreover, it was found that CH and P-I resulted in significantly equivalent infection rates to within ±1.5% (P=0.004). When stratified by procedure type, CH used in sports/upper extremity procedures resulted in 29 more infections per 1000 cases compared with P-I use (16/450; 3/450; P=0.005). No difference was detected in infection rate across CH and P-I skin antisepsis groups in lower extremity procedures (9/792; 8/792; P=1.00) or in trauma-related procedures (3/174; 4/174; P=1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: CH and P-I are both protective against postoperative infections after sports/upper extremity, lower extremity, and trauma-related pediatric orthopaedic procedures. P-I may provide improved protection over CH as a preoperative skin antisepsis in upper extremity and sports-related procedures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-comparative cohort.