Traditional Surgical Scrub Research Articles

Comparing surgeons’ skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: A matched quasi-experimental study

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the tolerance and acceptability of alcohol-based surgical hand preparation versus handscrubbing with antimicrobial soap and water by surgeons. MethodsMatched quasi-experimental trial in an academic quaternary care hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, from April 1 to October, 31, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedics surgeons from the study facility. In the first study phase, they performed handscrubbing with either 2% chlorhexidine (CHG) or 10% iodopovidone (PVP-I) and, in the second phase, they performed handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability were evaluated using WHO-validated tools. Data were analyzed using the MacNemar's test within STATA. ResultsA total of 33 surgeons participated to the “per protocol” population; the majority were male (94%); mean age of 35 years (SD, 8.5). On product tolerance, there was a minimal variation in redness, scaliness, fissures, and visual evaluation of the skin when handrubbing with ABHR was compared to handscrubbing with either PVP-I or CHX. Regarding acceptability, participants rated better handrubbing with ABHR than handscrubbing with PVP-I when assessing product smell (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002), color (73.3% vs 0%, p=0.001), product texture (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), skin dryness (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), ease of application (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002) and overall satisfaction (66.6% vs 6.7% p=0.011). Participants rated similarly handrubbing with ABHR and handscrubbing with CHX, except for product texture, where handrubbing rated better (71,4% vs. 0%, p=0.002). Handrubbing with ABHR was preferred by 73.3%. ConclusionAlthough handrubbing and handscrubbing were equally well tolerated by surgeons, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation fell into the personal preference for most of them. Trial registration. Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-8ym9yj.

Operating Room Hand Preparation: To Scrub or to Rub?

The alcohol rub has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional surgical scrub in preparing the hands for surgical procedures. Few reviews have examined critically the evidence that favors or discredits the use of the alcohol rub instead of the traditional scrub. A review of available published literature was undertaken to define the evidence for the best methods for hand preparation before surgical procedures. The focus of this literature review was to compare the bacteriologic and clinical outcomes of conventional surgical scrubbing of the hands compared with alcohol rubs. The bacteriologic studies of the hands after the conventional scrub versus the alcohol rub demonstrated consistently comparable or superior reductions in bacterial presence on the hand with the alcohol rub. Only four clinical studies were identified that compared the scrub versus the rub in the frequency of surgical site infections. No difference in surgical site infections were identified. The alcohol rub appears to have comparable results to the surgical scrub and is a reasonable alternative in preparation of the hands for surgical procedures.

Alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: translating scientific evidence into clinical practice

BackgroundAlthough alcohol-based surgical hand preparation offers potential advantages over the traditional surgical scrubbing technique, implementing it may be challenging due to resistance of surgeons in changing their practice. We aimed to implement alcohol-based surgical hand preparation in the hospital setting evaluating the impact of that on the quality and duration of the procedure, as well as on the prevention of surgical site infections.MethodsA quasi-experimental study conducted at a tertiary-care university hospital from April 01 to November 01, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedic surgical teams (n = 56) and patients operated by them (n = 231). Intervention consisted of making alcohol-based handrub available in the operating room, convincing and training surgical teams for using it, promoting direct observation of surgical hand preparation, and providing aggregated feedback on the quality of the preparation. The primary study outcome was the quality of the surgical hand preparation, inferred by the compliance with each one of the steps predicted in the World Health Organization (WHO) technique, evaluated through direct observation. Secondary study outcome was the patient’s individual probability of developing surgical site infection in both study periods. We used the Wilcoxon for paired samples and McNemar’s test to assess the primary study outcome and we build a logistic regression model to assess the secondary outcome.ResultsWe observed 534 surgical hand preparation events. Among 33 participants with full data available for both study periods, we observed full compliance with all the steps predicted in the WHO technique in 0.03% (1/33) of them in the pre-intervention period and in 36.36% (12/33) of them in the intervention period (OR:12.0, 95% CI: 2. 4-59.2, p = 0.002). Compared to the pre-intervention period, the intervention reduced the duration of the preparation (4.8 min vs 2.7 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The individual risk of developing a surgical site infection did not significantly change between the pre-intervention and the intervention phase (Adjusted RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0. 16-2.70, p = 0.563).ConclusionOur results demonstrate that, when compared to the traditional surgical scrub, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation improves the quality and reduces the duration of the preparation, being at least equally effective for the prevention of surgical site infections.

The impact of surgical hand antisepsis technique on surgical site infection

BackgroundLimited evidence exists regarding the effect on superficial and deep incisional surgical site infections (SDSSIs) of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABR) versus traditional aqueous surgical scrubs (TSS). User preferences and practice are unknown. MethodsA retrospective cohort study examining SDSSIs using VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program cases before ABR implementation (2007-2009, TSS group) and after (2013-2014, ABR group). A descriptive survey. ResultsSDSSI rates were 1.8% and 1.5% for TSS (n=4051) and ABR (n=2293), respectively (p=0.31). The adjusted odds of SDSSI using ABR was not significant (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.32). Greatest SDSSI risk was from preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.14-6.78), general surgery (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.30-4.39) and preoperative smoking (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44). Of 95 surveys included, 52% favored ABR. Although 95% self-reported correct product application, improper duration was revealed in both groups (TSS 18% and ABR 10%). ConclusionsImplementation of an ABR for use in surgical hand antisepsis did not alter SDSSI rates. Improving product knowledge and compliance may improve SSI rates.

Effect of Hand Antisepsis Agent Selection and Population Characteristics on Surgical Site Infection Pathogens.

Selection of a pre-operative hand antisepsis agent has not been studied in relation to surgical site infection (SSI) culture data. In our hospital, we introduced an alcohol-based hand rub (ABR) in 2012 as an alternative to traditional aqueous surgical scrubs (TSS). It was the goal of this study to review any effect of this implementation on SSI pathogen characteristics. In addition, we sought to compare our SSI culture data with available National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) data. We hypothesized that SSI pathogens and resistant isolates are affected by surgical hand antisepsis technique. Data collected prospectively between 2007 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed for two time periods at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS): Before ABR implementation (TSS group) and after (ABR group). Pathogen distribution and pathogenic isolate resistance profiles were compared for TSS and ABR, and similar comparisons, along with procedure-associated SSI comparisons, were made between VABHS and NHSN. All VABHS data were interpreted and categorized according to NHSN definitions. Compared with TSS (n = 4,051), ABR (n = 2,293) had a greater rate of Staphylococcus aureus (42.6% vs. 38.0%), Escherichia coli (12.8% vs. 9.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.5% vs. 2.8%), and Enterobacter spp. (10.6% vs. 2.8%), and a lower rate of Klebsiella pneumoniae/K. oxytoca (4.3% vs. 8.5%) cultured from superficial and deep SSIs (p < 0.05). Of the S. aureus isolates, 35.0% and 44.4% were resistant to oxacillin/methicillin (MRSA) in ABR and TSS, respectively (p = 0.06). Looking at all SSIs, coagulase-negative staphylococci and K. pneumoniae/K. oxytoca at VABHS (4.0% and 10.4%, respectively) accounted for the biggest difference from NHSN (11.7% and 4.0%, respectively). Aside from MRSA, where there was no difference between VABHS and NHSN (42.9% vs. 43.7%, respectively; p = 0.87), statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed among multi-drug-resistant K. pneumoniae/K. oxytoca (0% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and Escherichia coli (10.0% vs. 1.6%, respectively), as well as among extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant K. pneumoniae/K. oxytoca (4.8% vs. 13.2%, respectively) and Enterobacter (58.3% vs. 27.7%, respectively). VABHS had a greater proportion of SSIs in abdominal and vascular cases than did NHSN (48.6% vs. 22.5% and 13.2% vs. 1.5%, respectively). Overall, these differences were significant (p < 0.05). The TSS and ABR groups differed in the distribution of pathogens recovered. Those differences, along with SSI pathogen distribution, pathogenic isolate resistance profiles, and procedure-associated SSIs between VABHS and NHSN, warrant further investigation.

New method for assessing hand disinfection shows that pre-operative alcohol/chlorhexidine rub is as effective as a traditional surgical scrub

Several studies have shown that rubbing hands with an alcohol/chlorhexidine solution provides equivalent microbial decontamination to a conventional surgical scrub using aqueous chlorhexidine. However, the authors believe that these studies have methodological flaws that limit their applicability to the operating theatre environment. As such, a method was developed to compare products in an everyday operating theatre environment using working operating theatre personnel. To determine whether or not an alcohol/chlorhexidine rub is as efficacious as a traditional surgical scrub using a novel method. Bacterial counts at baseline were collected from 20 anaesthetists using the glove juice method. Subsequently, with sequential exchange of sterile gloves, one hand underwent a 3-min scrub using 4% aqueous chlorhexidine, and the other hand underwent a 60-s rub with a 70% isopropyl alcohol/0.5% chlorhexidine solution. The residual bacterial count was collected for each hand after 30 min using the glove juice method. These counts were converted to log10 values to compare the baseline counts of right and left hands, and efficacy between the treatment groups. Mean [± standard deviation (SD)] bacterial counts at baseline were (log10) 4.42 ± 0.81 for left hands and 4.64 ± 0.60 for right hands (P > 0.05). The mean (± SD) reduction from baseline was (log10) 1.45 ± 0.50 for 4% chlorhexidine and 2.01 ± 0.98 for alcohol/chlorhexidine (P > 0.05). An alcohol/chlorhexidine hand rub was found to be as efficacious as a traditional scrub after 30 min; this study differs from previous work as it was undertaken in a population of practising anaesthetists in their working environment. The McKenzie method allows baseline and study evaluations to be performed contemporaneously on the same individual. Each subject was his/her own control. This method offers a more clinically relevant way to compare disinfectant solutions than standard methods.

Antibacterial effects on dry‐fast and traditional water‐based surgical scrubbing methods: A two‐time points experimental study

This study determined the in-use effects of dry-fast and traditional hand-washing surgical scrubs among operating room staff members. This is a static group comparison study with purposive sampling. A total of 156 staff members were recruited in an operating room in a medical center located in southern Taiwan. The participants were divided into traditional and dry-fast hand-washing groups. Microbial counts were measured right after the two groups finished surgical scrubbing and at the completion of surgery. The results showed that the use of dry-fast antisepsis has a better persistent effect (P = 0.001), more nurses chose dry-fast antisepsis than surgeons (P = 0.012), and the post-operation number of colonies for nurses was significantly higher than that for surgeons (P = 0.003). Operating room nurses are long-term and frequent users of antibacterial agents, and their requirement of skin protection is higher. The dry-fast technique has the advantage of being less irritating to the skin and less time consuming; therefore, brush-free and dry-fast antisepsis is recommended.

Comparison of Surgical Hand Scrub and Alcohol Surgical Hand Rub on Reducing Hand Microbial Burden

This study was performed to compare the effects of two hand decontamination methods on the microbial burden of operating room staff hands. The surgical hand washing methods compared were a traditional surgical hand scrub using a povidone iodine solution, and a social wash using a liquid non-antibacterial soap followed by the application of an alcoholic hand rub.

Surgical Hand Antisepsis–A Pilot Study comparing Povidone Iodine Hand Scrub and Alcohol-based Chlorhexidine Gluconate Hand Rub

The surgeon uses different methods of surgical hand antisepsis with the aim of reducing surgical site infections. To date, there are no local studies comparing the efficacy of iodine hand scrub against newer alcohol-based hand rubs with active ingredients. Our pilot study compares a traditional aqueous hand scrub using 7.5% Povidone iodine (PVP-I) against a hand rub using Avagard: 61% ethyl alcohol, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate. The outcome measure is the number of Colony Forming Units (CFU) cultured from 10-digit fingertip imprints on agar plates. Ten volunteers underwent 2 hand preparation protocols, with a 30-minute interval in between-Protocol A (3-minute of aqueous scrub using PVP-I) and Protocol B (3-minute of hand rub, until dry, using Avagard). In each protocol, fingertip imprints were obtained immediately after hand preparation (t(0)). The volunteers proceeded to don sterile gloves and performed specific tasks (suturing). At one hour, the gloves were removed and a second set of imprints was obtained (t(1)). Four sets of fingertip imprints were obtained. All 10 participants complied with the supervised hand preparation procedures for each protocol. CFUs of initial fingertip imprints (t(0)): The median CFU counts for initial imprint was significantly higher in the PVP-I treatment (median = 6, Inter Quartile Range (IQR) = 33) compared to the Avagard treatment (median = 0, IQR = 0, P <0.001). CFUs of fingertip imprint at 1 hour (t(1)): The median CFU counts for second imprint (t(1)) was significantly higher in the PVP-I treatment (median = 0.5, IQR = 11) compared to the Avagard treatment (median = 0, IQR = 0, P = 0.009). Our results suggest that the Avagard was more efficacious than aqueous PVP-I scrub at reducing baseline colony counts and sustaining this antisepsis effect. Alcohol hand rub with an active compound, demonstrated superior efficacy in CFU reduction. Based on our results, and those pooled from other authors, we suggest that alcohol-based hand rubs could be included in the operating theatre as an alternative to traditional surgical scrub for surgical hand antisepsis.

Is Alcohol-Based Hand Disinfection Equivalent to Surgical Scrub Before Placing a Central Venous Catheter?

Waterless antiseptic surgical hand scrub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol, Avagard™; 3M Health Care, St. Paul, MN), alcohol-only cleanser (62% ethyl alcohol), and traditional surgical scrub (5-minute scrub with 4% chlorhexidine soap using a sterile scrub brush with water) are techniques used for hand cleansing and disinfection. We hypothesized that alcohol-only cleanser and waterless antiseptic scrub (Avagard) would be as effective as a traditional surgical scrub for hand cleansing before placement of central venous catheters. Fingers of subjects were plate-cultured for 24 hours after 5 methods of hand cleansing: method 1: traditional surgical scrub (n = 49 plates produced by 14 subjects); method 2: traditional surgical scrub (5-minute scrub with water, brush, and 4% chlorhexidine soap) followed by a 15-minute break, then alcohol-only cleanser (62% alcohol) (n = 49 plates produced by 14 subjects); method 3: alcohol-only cleanser alone (n = 49 plates produced by 14 subjects); method 4: alcohol-only cleanser (62% alcohol), followed by a 15-minute break, then traditional surgical scrub (5-minute scrub with brush, and 4% chlorhexidine soap with water) (n = 49 plates produced by 14 subjects); and method 5: waterless surgical scrub (Avagard) alone (n = 116 plates produced by 38 subjects). The 15-minute break was introduced to allow a short period of recontamination, and to test for residual effects from prior cleansing. Alcohol-only cleanser alone (method 3) was significantly less effective than the traditional surgical scrub (method 1) (P < 0.001; 82% plate growth). Waterless surgical scrub (Avagard) (method 5) had a 0% observed difference (95% confidence interval [CI]: -14% to 11%) compared with the traditional 5-minute scrub (method 1) (P = 0.99; 16% plate growth). When a traditional surgical scrub was used first followed by a 15-minute period of recontamination, there was a 6% observed difference in method 2 from reference (method 1) (95% CI: -10% to 22%), and 0% observed difference in method 4 from reference (95% CI: -15% to 15%). As the initial cleansing method, the alcohol-only cleanser (method 3) was significantly less effective than the traditional surgical scrub (method 1) (P < 0.001).

Patient attitudes to surgeons' attire in an outpatient clinic setting: substance over style

BackgroundIt is believed that patients prefer that surgeons convey a professional appearance with traditional business attire and white laboratory coat. We performed a prospective study to assess patient opinions regarding traditional attire versus the wearing surgical scrubs in the outpatient setting. MethodsDuring a 5-month period, surgeons alternated wearing traditional clothing and surgical scrubs. Adult patients were given a questionnaire assessing their preferences regarding surgeons' clothing. ResultsSix hundred twelve patients returned the questionnaire. The majority felt that scrubs were appropriate attire for physicians. Half of the patients felt that wearing white laboratory coats is necessary. A minority felt that their surgeon's dress affects their opinion regarding the care they received. There was no difference between responses regardless of the attire actually worn. ConclusionsSurgeon's clothing choice does not significantly influence patient's opinion of the care they receive. Patients do not have strong preferences for white coats or more traditional surgical attire.

Avagard Hand Antisepsis vs. Traditional Scrub in 3600 Pediatric Urologic Procedures

Avagard is a waterless, scrubless, and brushless hand antiseptic approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a replacement for traditional presurgical brush hand scrubbing. We evaluated the use of Avagard compared with hand brush scrub preparation for inpatient and outpatient pediatric urological operations. We evaluated the first 1800 patients for whom we used Avagard as a preoperative hand antiseptic and compared them with the last 1800 consecutive patients for whom we performed traditional antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush scrubbing. All patients underwent a variety of inpatient and outpatient open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic pediatric urological procedures. Patients were monitored postoperatively for wound infection, and patients and surgeon were monitored for side effects. A cost analysis was performed. The incidence of wound infection was 2/1800 (0.11%) in the Avagard group and 3/1800 (0.17%) in the hand-scrub group (P > .99 Fisher's exact test). All wound infections were successfully treated with a single course of oral antibiotics. No side effects for the patients or surgeon were noted, including skin irritations or allergic reactions in either group. The traditional hand scrub is nearly 2 times more expensive per application than Avagard. The incidence of wound infections in pediatric urological procedures is low (0.09%). We observe that Avagard provides comparable hand antisepsis to the traditional surgical scrub in a variety of pediatric urological procedures. Avagard is superior to the surgical hand scrub in cost-effectiveness and time efficiency. Urologists should consider using Avagard for hand antisepsis before surgery.

Use of Avagard in pediatric urologic procedures

Objectives To evaluate the use of Avagard compared with a hand-brush scrub preparation by the urologist in preparation for inpatient and outpatient pediatric urologic operations. Avagard (chlorhexidine gluconate 1% solution and ethyl alcohol 61% wt/wt) is a waterless, brushless, and scrubless hand antiseptic indicated as a replacement for traditional preoperative brush hand scrubbing. Methods We evaluated the first 550 patients for whom we used Avagard as a preoperative hand antiseptic and compared them with the last 550 consecutive patients for whom we performed traditional antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush scrubbing. All patients underwent pediatric urologic procedures. Patients were monitored postoperatively for signs of wound infection, and patients and the surgeon were monitored for side effects. A cost analysis was performed to compare the use of Avagard as a preoperative hand preparation with that of an antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush. Results The incidence of wound infection was one in the Avagard group and two in the hand-scrub group, not a statistically significant difference. All wound infections were successfully treated with a single course of oral antibiotics without any long-term sequelae. No side effects for the patients or surgeon were noted, including skin irritations or allergic reactions in either group. The use of Avagard was more time efficient and cost effective. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that Avagard is a fast, effective, easy to apply, and safe surgical hand preparation for pediatric urologic surgery. Its use is cost effective, as well as time efficient, in relation to the traditional surgical scrub.

Waterless, Scrubless Alcohol-Based Surgical Scrub Agent Compared to Traditional Surgical Scrub Using Chlorhexidine

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In veterinary surgery traditionally, the surgical hand scrub involves scrubbing the hand and forearms with a brush or impregnated sponge/brush for 6 minutes using a timed method or an anatomic stroke-count method. The new brushless techniques consist of vigorously rubbing an antimicrobial agent on the hands and arms for approximately 1.5-3 minutes. Alcohol-based scrub agents have been suggested as an alternative to the traditional method since prior studies have shown that prolonged and repeated scrubbing with a scrub brush increases skin damage and microbial skin counts. This study examined the effectiveness of a 1.5-2 minute application of a waterless, scrubless hand preparation containing 61% ethyl alcohol and 1% chlorhexidine, as compared to a traditional 6 minute scrub using 2% chlorhexidine on the initial reduction of bacterial counts on the hands of veterinary students preparing for surgery. The hypothesis was the scrubless alcohol-based technique would reduce bacterial counts at one-minute post scrubbing as effectively as a traditional surgical scrub using 2% chlorhexidine. METHODS: Thirty-two veterinary students were randomly assigned to perform either a traditional scrub or an alcohol-based scrub one week. The alternative technique was done the second week. Prior to the first surgical scrub of the day, hand cultures were performed using the modified glove-juice technique. After performing the randomly assigned scrub technique, the hand was cultured a second time one minute post scrub. An aliquot of culture solution was plated and colony-forming units were determined. The differences between groups in pre- and post-treatment log counts and log reductions were examined with a paired student's t-test using statistical significance of P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Both 2% chlorhexidine and the alcohol-based prep technique showed significant (P < 0.0001) reductions from baseline bacterial counts at one minute. No difference occurred between the groups in log reduction from baseline counts or post treatment log counts. CONCLUSIONS: This scrubless, waterless, alcohol-based scrub agent provides an effective alternative to the more traditional chlorehxidine and scrub brush techniques in reducing bacterial counts on hands being prepared for surgery.

Alcohol Hand Rub As Effective As Traditional Surgical Scrub and Better Tolerated

Infectious Diseases| December 01 2002 Alcohol Hand Rub As Effective As Traditional Surgical Scrub and Better Tolerated AAP Grand Rounds (2002) 8 (6): 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.8-6-65 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Alcohol Hand Rub As Effective As Traditional Surgical Scrub and Better Tolerated. AAP Grand Rounds December 2002; 8 (6): 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.8-6-65 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: ethanol, hand, surgical scrub, acute aortic syndrome, anabolic steroids Source: Parienti JJ, Pascal T, Heller R, et al. Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution versus traditional hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates. JAMA. 2002;288:722–727. To compare the effectiveness of 2 hand-cleansing protocols in preventing surgical site infections (SSI), these investigators from a French multisite collaboration performed a randomized trial using a multiple-service crossover experimental design that alternated protocols monthly for 16 months. The study involved 4,387 patients on 6 surgical services (3 teaching, 3 nonteaching). All patients treated by the surgical services were eligible for study. Patients in contaminated or dirty procedures were excluded, as were patients who underwent a second operation within 15 days of the first. The experimental method involved hand-rubbing for a total of at least 5 minutes with 75% aqueous alcoholic solution (AAS) containing propanol-1, propanol-2, and mecetronium etilsulfate (Sterillium). Prior to the first procedure of the day or if their hands were visibly soiled, the AAS group scrubbed their hands for 1 minute with nonantiseptic soap. The control method involved at least 5 minutes of systematic hand-scrubbing with standard 4% providone iodine (Betadine) or 4% chlorhexidine (Hibiscrub). The primary outcome measure was the difference in the 30-day SSI rate between the hand-rubbing and hand-scrubbing groups. Surgical team compliance and tolerance to the agents were also evaluated. The nosocomial SSI rates were similar between the 2 protocols: 53 of 2,135 (2.48%) developed SSI in the hand-scrubbing protocol and 55 of 2,252 (2.44%) in the hand-rubbing protocol. Compliance with the duration of hand hygiene was poor in both protocols but was significantly better in the hand-rubbing group compared with the hand-scrubbing group (44% versus 28%; P=.008). Skin irritation and dryness were found to increase during hand-scrubbing months and decrease during hand-rubbing months. The authors concluded that hand-rubbing with AAS (preceded by a nonantiseptic hand wash) was equivalent to hand-scrubbing in preventing SSI and noted that hand-rubbing with AAS improved compliance with and tolerance to hand antisepsis protocols. Perhaps because of the awareness of increasing antimicrobial resistance and a perception by some that nosocomial infection rates are a proxy for quality, more attention is being paid to basic hygiene and other cost-effective methods, such as hand cleansing, to prevent the spread of communicable illness.1 Very poor compliance with proper hand hygiene remains a concern for all health care facilities.2 Even though the hand washing procedures in an office or clinic differ from those in the operating suite, the basic principles are those first advocated by Semmelweis,3 and this study offers practical insights for the busy pediatrician. The above study’s results would suggest that prudent clinicians should start each session with a 1-minute nonantiseptic hand wash before the first patient (to be repeated if the hands become soiled) followed by hand-rubbing with AAS between patients. As has been shown before, AAS—which is available in various brands as a gel, foam or liquid—is at least as effective as traditional hand washing, with less skin irritation and improved compliance.4... You do not currently have access to this content.

Scrubbing for cutaneous procedures can be hazardous.

Office-based minor cutaneous surgery is a service provided by many medical practitioners. In New South Wales, Australia, it is a legal requirement for practitioners to surgically scrub before donning sterile gloves for all forms of invasive surgery, including minor cutaneous procedures. Frequent scrubbing causes altered skin barrier function, irritant dermatitis and a potential risk of latex sensitization. These adverse effects are associated with significant morbidity and cost. Better tolerated alternatives, including alcohol-based hand rubs, should be considered in preference to traditional surgical scrubs in order to reduce these occupational risks for minor proceduralists. Well-controlled, prospective studies should explore what extent of hand washing is necessary for donning sterile gloves for minor cutaneous surgery.

Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy

A new waterless surgical hand preparation containing 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and 61% ethyl alcohol was evaluated for antimicrobial efficacy in comparison with a standard 4% CHG surgical scrub and a 61% ethyl alcohol control. Clinical studies were based on the Tentative Final Monograph for Health-Care Antiseptic Drug Products (TFM) (proposed rule) and the Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Surgical Hand Scrub Formulations (ASTM E1115-91). Two randomized, blinded, well-controlled clinical studies involving 137 healthy subjects were conducted to evaluate the antimicrobial effectiveness of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation in producing an immediate and persistent reduction in the normal bacterial flora of the hands. The CHG/ethanol hand preparation was applied without scrubbing or the use of water, and a standard 4% CHG reference product was applied with a scrub brush in 2 traditional 3-minute surgical scrubs. In 1 study, a 61% ethanol vehicle control treatment was applied without scrubbing or use of water. During a 5-day period, each study subject performed a series of 11 surgical scrubs with 1 of the test treatments. After the first treatment on days 1, 2, and 5, surgical gloves were worn for 3 or 6 hours. Bacterial samples were taken with the glove-juice technique at 1 minute, 3 hours, and 6 hours after treatment. The immediate bactericidal effect of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation after a single application resulted in a 2.5-log reduction in normal flora. This bactericidal effect persisted throughout the studies and eventually increased to a 3.6-log reduction after the 11th scrub on day 5. The log reductions of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation proved to be significantly better (P < .05) than that of the 4% CHG product at each sampling interval on days 1 and 2 and the sampling at 6 hours on day 5 and significantly better than the 61% ethanol vehicle at all times. The combination of 1% CHG and 61% ethanol had significantly greater microbial reduction than either the 4% CHG (without ethanol) or the 61% ethanol vehicle (without CHG). (Am J Infect Control 2001;29:377-82)

Comparison of Different Regimens for Surgical Hand Preparation

Twenty surgical staff members participated in a clinical trial to compare the microbiology and skin condition of hands when using a traditional surgical scrub (TSS) with a detergent-based antiseptic containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and a short application without scrub of a waterless hand preparation (HP) containing 61% ethyl alcohol, 1% CHG, and emollients. The HP was associated with less skin damage (P = .002) and lower microbial counts postscrub at days five (P = .002) and 19 (P = .02). The HP protocol had shorter contact time (HP mean [M] = 80.7 seconds; TSS M = 144.9 seconds; P < .0001), and more subjects preferred the HP regimen (P = .001). The HP performed better than the TSS, was less costly, and should be evaluated in larger trials and considered for widespread implementation.