Suppr超能文献

皮肤消毒剂的比较和 0.01%次氯酸的作用。

Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid.

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Oculoplastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Miami Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL, USA.

Department of Statistics, University of Miami Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL, USA.

出版信息

Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Sep 14;41(10):1170-1175. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa322.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

次氯酸(HA)具有抗菌和促进伤口愈合的特性,在面部预处理中越来越多地被应用。

目的

作者旨在比较 0.01% HA 溶液、5%聚维酮碘(PI)、4%葡萄糖酸氯己定(CHG)和 70%异丙醇(IPA)在面部皮肤的消毒效果。

方法

这是一项前瞻性单中心临床试验。

结果

共招募了 21 名参与者。CHG(10%)、IPA(71%)、PI(81%)和 HA(95%)标本均有细菌生长(P < 0.001)。与 HA(P = <0.001)、IPA(P = <0.001)和 PI(P = <0.001)相比,CHG 的细菌生长较少。HA 与 IPA(P = 0.063)或 HA 与 PI(P = 0.25)之间的细菌生长无差异。HA 与 IPA(P = 0.046)和 HA 与 CHG(P = <0.001)之间的单种和多种微生物生长差异有统计学意义。表皮葡萄球菌在 CHG(10%)中生长较少,其次是 IPA(29%)、PI(71%)和 HA(71%)。头状葡萄球菌在 CHG(0%)中生长较少,其次是 PI(14%)、HA(24%)和 IPA(29%)。

结论

与 HA、PI 和 IPA 相比,CHG 减少了细菌生长。然而,HA、PI 和 IPA 在杀菌效果方面没有显著差异。我们的研究为 HA 可被考虑作为消毒剂提供了支持。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid.
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Sep 14;41(10):1170-1175. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa322.
2
0.01% Hypochlorous Acid as an Alternative Skin Antiseptic: An In Vitro Comparison.
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec;44(12):1489-1493. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594.
3
Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 May 4;5(5):CD013841. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013841.pub2.
4
Chlorhexidine alcohol versus povidone-iodine: The comparative study of skin disinfectants at the blood transfusion centers of Iran.
Transfus Clin Biol. 2020 Apr;27(2):78-82. doi: 10.1016/j.tracli.2020.01.005. Epub 2020 Jan 18.
6
An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts.
J Hosp Infect. 1997 May;36(1):49-65. doi: 10.1016/s0195-6701(97)90090-6.
7
Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol skin disinfectant.
J Hosp Infect. 2005 Dec;61(4):287-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.05.015. Epub 2005 Oct 10.
9
Analyses comparing the antimicrobial activity and safety of current antiseptic agents: a review.
J Infus Nurs. 2005 May-Jun;28(3):194-207. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200505000-00008.

引用本文的文献

2
: Review of Its Role in Infections and Outbreaks.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Mar 29;12(4):669. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12040669.
3
The role of hypochlorous acid in the management of eye infections: a case series.
Drugs Context. 2022 Jul 5;11. doi: 10.7573/dic.2022-3-10. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
The Utility of Hypochlorous Acid Wound Therapy in Wound Bed Preparation and Skin Graft Salvage.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar;143(3):677e-678e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005359.
3
0.01% Hypochlorous Acid as an Alternative Skin Antiseptic: An In Vitro Comparison.
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec;44(12):1489-1493. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594.
4
In Vitro Evaluation of a Hypochlorous Acid Hygiene Solution on Established Biofilms.
Eye Contact Lens. 2018 Nov;44 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S187-S191. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000456.
7
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017.
JAMA Surg. 2017 Aug 1;152(8):784-791. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904.
8
Reduction in bacterial load using hypochlorous acid hygiene solution on ocular skin.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr 13;11:707-714. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S132851. eCollection 2017.
9
Chlorhexidine Keratitis: Safety of Chlorhexidine as a Facial Antiseptic.
Dermatol Surg. 2017 Jan;43(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000822.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验