Visibility of surgical site marking after preoperative skin preparation
Simon C Mears, A Feroz Dinah, Trevor A Knight, Frank J Frassica, Stephen M Belkoff, Simon C Mears, A Feroz Dinah, Trevor A Knight, Frank J Frassica, Stephen M Belkoff
Abstract
Objective: It is important that during preoperative skin preparation surgical site markings are not erased. The effects of 2 common types of skin preparation solutions on surgical site markings were compared.
Methods: Fasciocutaneous skin flaps were harvested and 20 random combinations of 3 letters were written on the skin flaps with a black permanent marker. Ten of the 3-letter combinations received Chloraprep (chlorhexidine gluconate, 2% w/v, plus isopropyl alcohol, 70% v/v) and the other 10 received Duraprep (iodine povacrylex [0.7% available iodine] and isopropyl alcohol [74% w/w]), both according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The skin flaps were photographed digitally before and after application of the solutions. The final pictures were assessed subjectively by 10 surgeons and then objectively to determine the change in visibility of the marking on each specimen.
Results: Of the 300 letters in each group, the number of correctly identified letters was 254 (84.7%) in the Chloraprep group and 284 (94.7%) in the Duraprep group. On the basis of the visibility of skin markings, Chloraprep was 21.8 times more likely (95% credible interval, 7.3-86.7) to erase the site markings than was Duraprep.
Conclusions: Skin preparation with Chloraprep erased more surgical site markings than did Duraprep.
Figures
References
- American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Advisory statement on wrong site surgery. Available at: . Accessed June 5, 2007.
- Joint Commission on Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations National Patient Safety Goals, 2003. Perspectives on patient safety. July, 2002. Available at: . Accessed June 5, 2007.
- Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:250–78.
- Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Hummel RP. Surgical considerations of endogenous infections–sources, types, and methods of control. Surg Clin North Am. 1968;48:227–40.
- McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12:147–79.
- Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:792–801.
- Culligan PJ, Kubik K, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Snyder J. A randomized trial that compared povidone iodine and chlorhexidine as antiseptics for vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:422–5.
- 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. 2005;438:204–8.
- Ostrander RV, Botte MJ, Brage ME. Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in foot and ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:980–5.
- Jacobson C, Osmon DR, Hanssen A, et al. Prevention of wound contamination using Duraprep solution plus Ioban 2 drapes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:32–7.
- American College of Surgeons Committee on Processes of Surgical Care and the Member Services Liaison Committee Statement on ensuring correct patient, correct site, and correct procedure surgery. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2002;87:26.
- Makary MA, Mukherjee A, Sexton JB, et al. Operating room briefings and wrong-site surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:236–43.
- McLure AR, Gordon J. In-vitro evaluation of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 1992;21:291–9.
- Kunisada T, Yamada K, Oda S, Hara O. Investigation on the efficacy of povidone-iodine against antiseptic-resistant species. Dermatology. 1997;195:14–8.
Source: PubMed