Research Article

Does Skin Preparation Influence Surgical Site Infection in Laparotomy Wounds: Comparative Evaluation of Preoperative Skin Preparation With 4% Chlorhexidine With 5% Povidone Iodine in Laparotomy Wounds: A Prospective Trial

Ravindran Chirukandath
Government Medical College, India
* Corresponding author
Manoj P. Elangovan
Government Medical College, India
Agil B.
Government Medical College, India
Reshma A. Cheedhamadathil
Government Medical College, India
Ayana M. Dev
Government Medical College, India
Naveen K. Sreekumar
Government Medical College, India
Babu P. John
Government Medical College, India
DOI icon 10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.4.415

Read Counter
592

Downloads
462

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2020-07-28
Published 2020-08-30

Read counter = 592 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Introduction: Surgical site infection is a dangerous condition causing a heavy burden on the patient and social health system. Surgical site infections are among the most common hospital acquired infections comprising 14 to 16% of inpatient infections. There are various factors predisposing the infections and many of them are patient related or disease related. The use of pre-operative skin preparation by effective antiseptic plays an important role in reducing postoperative wound infections. There are several kinds of antiseptics available for preoperative skin preparation; however povidone iodine and spirit are commonly used in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: This study compared the incidence of surgical site infections within 7 days of postoperative period in laparotomy wounds prepared using 4% Chlorhexidine and those prepared with 5% Povidone iodine for pre-laparotomy skin preparation. Results: This study compared 128, 4% Chlorhexidine prepared patients and 109,  5% Povidone iodine prepared patients undergoing various elective n = 114 and emergency procedures n = 123. The overall SSI rates in 7 days in the whole group were 13.44 %. The SSI rates on the 4% Chlorhexidine group were 10.16% and 5% povidone iodine group were 17.27% and it was statically significant with a p value of p = 0.00413 showing significant reduction in the 4% Chlorhexidine group. The study also compared the SSI rates in elective and emergency procedures in both groups with significant difference in emergency procedures. More variables are also compared between the groups and results were analyzed. Conclusion: This study shows the use of Chlorhexidine 4% reduces the morbidity of one of the most common wound related complication in laparotomy patients in all categories of laparotomy wounds.

Keywords: SSI, Chlorhexidine 4%, Povidone iodine 5%, Laparotomy

References

  1. CF Brunicardi, DK Andersen, Schwartz's manual of surgery. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
     Google Scholar
  2. RL. Nichols, “Postoperative infections in the age of drug-resistant gram-positive bacteria,” Am J Med, Vol.104, pp.11S-16S., 1998.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics Vital and Health Statistics, Detailed diagnoses and procedures national hospital discharge survey 1994. Hyattsville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services; vol. 127, 1997.
     Google Scholar
  4. G Fabiano, A Pezzolla, MA Filograna, F Ferrarese, “Risk factors of surgical wound infection,” Ann Ital Chir, Vol.175 No.1, pp.11-6, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  5. V Paocharoen, C Mingmalairak, A Apisarnthanarak, “Comparison of surgical wound infection after preoperative skin preparation with 4% chlorhexidine [correction of chlorhexidine] and povidone iodine: a prospective randomized trial,” J Med Assoc Thai. Vol.92, No. 7, pp. 898-902, 2009.
     Google Scholar
  6. A Guzel, T Ozekinci, U Ozkan, Y Celik, A Ceviz, D Belen, “Evaluation of the skin flora after chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine preparation in neurosurgical practice” Surg Neurol, Vol.71 No. 2, pp.207-10, 2009.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  7. AJ Mangram, TC Horan, ML Peearson, LC Silver, WR Jarvis, “Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee,” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, Vol. 20, pp.250-278, 1999.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  8. GW Denton. Chlorhexidine. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001, pp. 321-36.
     Google Scholar
  9. PJ Culligan, K Kubik, M Murphy, L Blackwell, J Snyder, “A randomized trial that compared povidone iodine and chlorhexidine as antiseptics for vaginal hysterectomy,” Am J Obstet Gynecol, Vol.192, pp.422-425, 2005.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  10. RV Ostrander, MJ Botte, ME Brage, “Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in foot and ankle surgery,” J Bone Joint Surg Am, Vol.87, pp.980-985, 2005.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  11. Bibbo C, Patel DV, Gehrmann RM, Lin SS. “Chlorhexidine provides superior skin decontamination in foot and ankle surgery: a prospective randomized study,” Clin Orthop Relat Res, Vol. 438, pp.204-208, 2005.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  12. AM Milstone, CL Passaretti, TM Perl, “Chlorhexidine: Expanding the armamentarium for infection control and prevention,” Clin Infect Dis, Vol.46, pp.274-81, 2008.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  13. Hebl JR, Niesen AD. “Infectious complications of regional anesthesia,” Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, Vol.24, pp.573-80, 2011.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  14. JC Dumville, E McFarlane, P Edwards, A Lipp, A Holmes, “Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery,” Cochrane Database Syst Rev, No.3, CD003949, 2013.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  15. M Maiwald, ESY Chan. “The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis,” PLoS ONE, Vol.7, No. 9, 2012.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar