0
Scientific Articles   |    
Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Foot and Ankle Surgery
Roger V. Ostrander, MD1; Michael J. Botte, MD2; Michael E. Brage, MD3
1 Andrews Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Center, 1118 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Suite 100, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
2 Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, 10666 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037
3 Department of Orthopaedics, University of California, San Diego, 200 West Arbor Drive, #8894, San Diego, CA 92103
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2005; 87:980-985  doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01977
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated higher infection rates following orthopaedic procedures on the foot and ankle as compared with procedures involving other areas of the body. Previous studies also have documented the difficulty of eliminating bacteria from the forefoot prior to surgery. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different surgical skin-preparation solutions in eliminating potential bacterial pathogens from the foot.

Methods: A prospective study was undertaken to evaluate 125 consecutive patients undergoing surgery of the foot and ankle. Each lower extremity was prepared with one of three randomly selected solutions: DuraPrep (0.7% iodine and 74% isopropyl alcohol), Techni-Care (3.0% chloroxylenol), or ChloraPrep (2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol). After preparation, quantitative culture specimens were obtained from three locations: the hallux nailfold (the hallux site), the web spaces between the second and third and between the fourth and fifth digits (the toe site), and the anterior part of the tibia (the control site).

Results: In the Techni-Care group, bacteria grew on culture of specimens obtained from 95% of the hallux sites, 98% of the toe sites, and 35% of the control sites. In the DuraPrep group, bacteria grew on culture of specimens obtained from 65% of the hallux sites, 45% of the toe sites, and 23% of the control sites. In the ChloraPrep group, bacteria grew on culture of specimens from 30% of the hallux sites, 23% of the toe sites, and 10% of the control sites. ChloraPrep was the most effective agent for eliminating bacteria from the halluces and the toes (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The use of effective preoperative preparation solution is an important step in limiting surgical wound contamination and preventing infection, particularly in foot and ankle surgery. Of the three solutions tested in the present study, the combination of chlorhexidine and alcohol (ChloraPrep) was most effective for eliminating bacteria from the forefoot prior to surgery.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $30
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Roger V. Ostrander
    Posted on November 20, 2005
    Dr. Ostrander and colleagues respond to Dr. Rittle
    Andrews Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Center, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

    We appreciate the comments that were made regarding our recent study, which allows me to explain our methodology in more detail.

    Cultures were obtained several minutes after the prep solution was applied. Dry, sterile, cotton-tipped swabs were used to sample the skin. We did not moisten the swabs with saline or water. By the time the cultures were obtained, all prep solutions had dried on the skin. The swabs were therefore passed over the skin which was covered by a dried film of prep solution. Again, the swabs were dry. The water-soluble preps (Techni-Care and ChloraPrep) were no more likely than the water- insoluble prep (DuraPrep) to be absorbed onto the swab and there was no visible prep solution on the swabs after obtaining the cultures. Therefore, the lack of a neutralizer should not have inflated the efficacy of the water-soluble preps relative to the water-insoluble prep tested. In fact, the addition of a neutralizer may have falsely elevated the kill rates for DuraPrep. It has been suggested that the water-insoluble polymer may shield the antimicrobial from the neutralizer, rendering the neutralizer ineffective. Finally, the dry swabs were placed into transport media and were carried immediately to the lab for processing, decreasing the time for any further bacterial kill.

    To address Dr.Rittle's second comment, the swabs were not moistened prior to sampling the skin. The prep solutions had dried. Therefore, the sampling methods were comparable for all three solutions tested. Given the very visible, yellow coloration of the DuraPrep solution, we were certain that the foot and ankle was thoroughly and completely prepped. No swabs were taken from un-prepped areas on the skin. The suggestion that the DuraPrep positive cultures were the result of some unknown contamination is very unlikely. The positive cultures were consistent with the native microflora found on the foot and ankle.

    Finally, we understand that the FDA has minimum requirements for pre- surgical skin preparation solutions. It is our feeling, however, that the goal of presurgical preparation should be to reduce the bacterial load as much as possible in an effort to limit potentially devastating postoperative infections. In the current study, the combination of chlorhexidine and alcohol (ChloraPrep) was the most efficacious of the three solutions tested in eliminating bacteria from the forefoot prior to surgery.

    Karen H. Rittle, Ph.D.
    Posted on August 22, 2005
    Two limitations of the study
    3M Company, Medical Division, St. Paul, MN 55144-10000

    To the Editor:

    I am writing to point out 2 limitations not mentioned in the study presented in your May, 2005, article “Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in foot and ankle surgery” by Ostrander, et al.

    No neutralizing ingredient(s) (neutralizer) was/were used in the sampling method, either on the swab, in the transport media, or the culture media. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method E1054-02 recommends adding appropriate neutralizers to the solution used for sampling skin. A neutralizer inactivates an antimicrobial at sampling so that there is no further kill in the test tube while the sample is waiting to be diluted and plated for quantification. If a neutralizer is not present, the antimicrobial will continue to kill bacteria in vitro resulting in an erroneous higher kill rate. The lack of a neutralizer would inflate the efficacy of the water-soluble preps (Techni-Care@ and ChloraPrep@) tested.

    The second limitation is the sampling method. 3Mâ„¢ DuraPrepâ„¢ Surgical Solution forms a water insoluble film when it dries. Sampling solution with or without neutralizer will not dissolve the DuraPrepTM film to allow sampling of the skin beneath. Since the other antimicrobials are water soluble, the sampling method is not consistent between products. Any bacteria sampled from DuraPrepTM film are likely to have come from an area that was not completely prepped or from some other contamination.

    FDA requires that a surgical prep in moist areas – such as the forefoot or inquinal area – reduce bacterial count by 3 logs(1). In some studies, patients have been found to have 6+ logs(2,3) of bacteria in moist sites. So even if a surgical prep is doing its job by reducing bacteria by 3 logs, there will still be residual bacteria remaining.

    References:

    (1) Health-Care Antiseptic Drug Product Tentative Final Monograph, Proposed Rule, 59 Federal Register, p. 31402-31452 (Friday, June 17, 1994).

    (2) Jeng, D.K. and J.E. Severin. Povidone iodine gel alcohol: a 30-second, onetime application preoperative skin preparation. Am J Infect Control 26: 488-494, 1998.

    (3) 3M internal data.

    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center