From the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Droll, Abouassaly, Cullinan, Puskas); the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Droll, Cullinan, Puskas, Dubois); the Centre for Applied Health Research, St. Joseph's Care Group, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Dubois); and the School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Dubois)
From the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Droll, Abouassaly, Cullinan, Puskas); the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Droll, Cullinan, Puskas, Dubois); the Centre for Applied Health Research, St. Joseph's Care Group, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Dubois); and the School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ont. (Dubois).
Can J Surg. 2022 Nov 16;65(6):E756-E762. doi: 10.1503/cjs.017221. Print 2022 Nov-Dec.
The use of an effective antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation solution is essential in preventing infections after surgery, but the findings in the literature regarding efficacy are not necessarily applicable to surgery involving the hip. The purpose of the present study was twofold: 1) to examine the native bacteria on the skin at the hip and 2) to determine the efficacy of 2 surgical skin preparation solutions at eliminating bacteria from the hip site in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.
We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in consecutive adult patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty at a single institution from October 2014 to December 2015. Each patient was randomly allocated to be treated with 1 of 2 commonly used surgical skin preparation solutions: ChloraPrep (2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol) or DuraPrep (0.7% iodophor and 74% isopropyl alcohol). Aerobic and anaerobic samples were obtained for culture before skin preparation, immediately after skin preparation and after skin closure.
Full data were obtained for 105 patients: 54 in the ChloraPrep group and 51 in the DuraPrep group. , and were the organisms most commonly isolated from the hip before skin preparation. Positive bacterial culture results were obtained in 50 patients (93%) in the ChloraPrep group and 48 patients (94%) in the DuraPrep group. Immediately after skin preparation, the overall proportion of positive culture results was significantly lower in the DuraPrep group than the ChloraPrep group (14% v. 35%, adjusted relative risk 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.85). After wound closure, there was no significant difference in the rate of positive culture results between the 2 groups.
DuraPrep was more effective than ChloraPrep at eliminating skin flora at the hip initially on application, but the 2 solutions were equally effective at the time of closure. Further study with larger samples is required to identify any influence of skin preparation solution on the incidence of prosthetic joint infection.
在手术后预防感染方面,使用有效的抗菌术前皮肤准备溶液至关重要,但文献中的疗效发现不一定适用于涉及髋关节的手术。本研究的目的有两个:1)检查髋关节皮肤的固有细菌,2)确定 2 种手术皮肤准备溶液在接受全髋关节置换术的患者中从髋关节部位消除细菌的功效。
我们在 2014 年 10 月至 2015 年 12 月在一家机构进行了一项连续的成年患者的前瞻性随机对照试验,每位患者随机分配接受 2 种常用手术皮肤准备溶液之一的治疗:氯己定(2%葡萄糖酸氯己定和 70%异丙醇)或 DuraPrep(0.7%碘伏和 74%异丙醇)。在皮肤准备之前、皮肤准备后立即和皮肤闭合后采集需氧和厌氧样本进行培养。
105 例患者获得了完整的数据:ChloraPrep 组 54 例,DuraPrep 组 51 例。在皮肤准备前,髋关节最常分离出的细菌是 和 。ChloraPrep 组 50 例(93%)和 DuraPrep 组 48 例(94%)患者的细菌培养结果为阳性。皮肤准备后,DuraPrep 组阳性培养结果的总体比例明显低于 ChloraPrep 组(14%比 35%,调整后的相对风险 0.40,95%置信区间 0.18-0.85)。在伤口闭合时,两组的阳性培养结果率没有差异。
与 ChloraPrep 相比,DuraPrep 最初在应用时更有效地消除髋关节皮肤菌群,但在闭合时,两种溶液同样有效。需要更大样本量的进一步研究来确定皮肤准备溶液对假体关节感染发生率的任何影响。