To investigate the change of bacterial load appl ied with iodophors and rivanol of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), furthermore to evaluate the effect of both in removing superficial microbes of DFUs. Methods From March 2006 to March 2007, 30 patients were randomly divided into control group (group A, n=10), iodophor group (group B, n=10) and rivanol group (group C, n=10). There were 18 males and 12 females with an average age of 59.8 years (range 46-78 years). The wound size ranged from 3 cm × 2 cm to 15 cm × 10 cm. The disease course was 6 weeks to 6 months (mean 2.1months). Each wound was debrided and irrigated before process, then drug was compressed on the wound for 5 minutes, and irrigated again. The samples gained for three times, before, immediately and 24 hours after the process. Each sample was diluted before cultivation, the bacteria of wound were counted and compared among 3 groups. Results The cultures of specimens showed that the load decreased in every group, each cultured colony of specimen grew well, and there were no significant differences between 3 groups immediately after procedure (P gt; 0.05). There were significant differences between group B and groups A, C (P lt; 0.05), but there were no significant difference between group A and group C 24 hours after treatment (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Both iodophors and rivanol could remove the bacteria on the surface of wound. Topical germicide could reduced bacterial load in the wound of diabetic foot, the role of steril izing and bacteriostasis of iodophors were better than that of rivanol.
ObjectiveTo compare the effects of povidone iodine handwashing with brush and brush-free handwashing on the hand skin condition of nurses in operation room. MethodA random sampling method was used to choose 150 nurses from the operation room of a grade-3 class-A hospital as our study subjects from June 2013 to December 2014. They were randomly divided into control group and study group according to the random number table with 75 in each. The control group used the traditional povidone iodine handwashing with brush, while the study group applied brush-free handwashing method. Then, we compared the hand skin condition and disinfection effect of these two kinds of handwashing methods. ResultsThe control group had dry skin in 34 nurses (45.3%), dry desquamation in 9 (12.0%), tight feeling in 51 (68.0%), and allergy in 5 (6.7%). The study group had dry skin in 19 nurses (25.3%), dry desquamation in 0 (0.0%), tension in 21 (28.0%), and allergy in 0 (0.0%). The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). ConclusionsThe brush-free handwashing method is able to achieve the requirements of surgical hand disinfection, and can protect the skin of nurses in operation room.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of chlorhexidine versus povidone iodine in the prevention of wound infections after surgeries by meta-analysis. Methods All randomized controlled trials comparing these two disinfectants were searched from databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), EMbase, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI from inception to August 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the chlorhexidine group had significantly lower rates in any surgical site infection (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88,P=0.001) and superficial incisional infection (RR=0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91,P=0.01) when compared with povidone iodine group. However, there were no significant differences in deep incisional infection (RR=0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.11,P=0.09) and organ-space infection (RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76,P=0.92) between the two groups. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed differences in any surgical site infection and superficial incisional infection could only be found in surgeries possibly contaminated. Conclusion Chlorhexidine may be superior in decreasing the incidence of infection in probably contaminated surgery.
ObjectiveTo observe the differences in the positive rate of conjunctival sac microbial culture after different methods of preventing infection before intravitreal injection (IVI). MethodsA prospective case-control study. A total of 1 200 participants with fundus diseases who received IVI injection at Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital from July 2021 to December 2023 were included. Patients were randomly divided into 6 groups according to eye spot with antibiotic solution 3, 1 and 0 days before IVI and local eye disinfection with povidone-iodine (PVI) 3 min and 30 s before IVI: the first 3 days of antibiotics+3 min PVI group, the first 1 day of antibiotics+3 min PVI group, the first 0 days of antibiotics+3 min PVI group, the first 3 days of antibiotics+30 s PVI group, the first 1 day of antibiotics+30 s PVI group, the first 0 days of antibiotics+30 s PVI group, there were 200 cases in each group. Microbial sampling and cultivation of conjunctival sac were conducted before IVI to compare the differences in positive rates among different groups. Multiple group comparisons were conducted using one-way analysis of variance. The comparison of count data is conducted using χ2 test. ResultsAmong the 1 200 patients, there were 566 males and 634 females. Age (62.59±13.44) years old. There were 397 cases of diabetes and 482 cases of hypertension. IVI frequency (2.35±2.34). 64 cases were positive for conjunctival sac culture before IVI. The age (F=1.468), sex composition ratio (χ2=2.876), diabetes (χ2=10.002), hypertension (χ2=6.019), times of IVI (χ2=4.507), and positive rate of conjunctival sac bacterial culture (χ2=6.272) of patients in each group had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). Using the duration of antibiotic application before IVI as a stratified factor, there was no statistically significant difference in the positive rate of conjunctival sac culture between groups with different durations of antibiotic application before IVI [χ2=0.414, P=0.52, combined odds ratio (OR)=0.819, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.493-1.360]. Using the duration of PVI application as a stratified factor, there was no statistically significant difference in the positive rate of conjunctival sac culture between different PVI disinfection times [χ2=0.000, P=1.000, combined OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.503-1.988]. ConclusionsPre IVI treatment with 0.5% PVI for 30 s can inhibit the growth of microbial colonies in the conjunctival sac. The application of local antibiotic eye fluid in the anterior eye of IVI cannot reduce the positive rate of conjunctival sac bacteria.