Veterinary surgery : VS · 2016
Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chou Po-Yen, Doyle Aimie J, Arai Shiori, Burke Pierre J, Bailey Trina R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study.
STUDY POPULATION: Third year veterinary students (n=45).
METHODS: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively.
RESULTS: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups.
CONCLUSION: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study.
STUDY POPULATION: Third year veterinary students (n=45).
METHODS: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively.
RESULTS: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups.
CONCLUSION: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.