Aesthetic surgery journal · 2021
Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid.
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.
Tran Ann Q, Topilow Nicole, Rong Andrew, Persad Patrice J, Lee Michael C, Lee James H, Anagnostopoulos Apostolos G, Lee Wendy W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypochlorous acid (HA) has both anti-microbial and wound-healing properties with a growing role for utilization in pre-procedural care on the face.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the antiseptic property of 0.01% HA solution, 5% povidone iodine (PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) antiseptic on facial skin.
METHODS: This was a prospective single-center clinical trial.
RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited. Bacterial growth was seen in CHG (10%), IPA (71%), PI (81%), and HA (95%) of specimens (P < 0.001). CHG had less growth compared with HA (P = <0.001), IPA (P = <0.001), and PI (P = <0.001). No difference in bacterial growth was noted between HA and IPA (P = 0.063) or HA and PI (P = 0.25). Significant differences in mono-microbial and poly-microbial growth were seen between HA and IPA (P = 0.046) and HA and CHG (P = <0.001). Staphylococcus epidermidis grew less frequently in CHG (10%), followed by IPA (29%), PI (71%), and HA (71%). Staphylococcus capitis grew less frequently in CHG (0%), followed by PI (14%), HA (24%), and IPA (29%).
CONCLUSIONS: CHG reduced the bacterial growth compared with HA, PI, and IPA. However, HA, PI, and IPA had insignificant differences in bactericidal effects. Our study provides a supporting role of HA to be considered as an antiseptic.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the antiseptic property of 0.01% HA solution, 5% povidone iodine (PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) antiseptic on facial skin.
METHODS: This was a prospective single-center clinical trial.
RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited. Bacterial growth was seen in CHG (10%), IPA (71%), PI (81%), and HA (95%) of specimens (P < 0.001). CHG had less growth compared with HA (P = <0.001), IPA (P = <0.001), and PI (P = <0.001). No difference in bacterial growth was noted between HA and IPA (P = 0.063) or HA and PI (P = 0.25). Significant differences in mono-microbial and poly-microbial growth were seen between HA and IPA (P = 0.046) and HA and CHG (P = <0.001). Staphylococcus epidermidis grew less frequently in CHG (10%), followed by IPA (29%), PI (71%), and HA (71%). Staphylococcus capitis grew less frequently in CHG (0%), followed by PI (14%), HA (24%), and IPA (29%).
CONCLUSIONS: CHG reduced the bacterial growth compared with HA, PI, and IPA. However, HA, PI, and IPA had insignificant differences in bactericidal effects. Our study provides a supporting role of HA to be considered as an antiseptic.