Article

Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection

Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, England, United Kingdom
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2006; 3(3):CD004122. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004122.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The preparation of people for surgery has traditionally included the routine removal of body hair from the intended surgical wound site. However, there are studies which claim that pre-operative hair removal is deleterious to patients, perhaps by causing surgical site infections (SSIs), and should not be carried out.
The primary objective of this review was to determine if routine pre-operative hair removal results in fewer SSIs than not removing hair.
The reviewers searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (October 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1980 to 2005), CINAHL (1982 to 2005), and the ZETOC database of conference proceedings (1993 to 2005). We also contacted manufacturers of hair removal products.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hair removal with no hair removal, different methods of hair removal, hair removal conducted at different times prior to surgery and hair removal carried out in different settings.
Three authors independently assessed the relevance and quality of each trial. Data was extracted independently by one author and cross checked for accuracy by a second author.
Eleven RCTs were included in this review. Three trials involving 625 people compared hair removal using either depilatory cream or razors with no hair removal and found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of surgical site infections. No trials were identified which compared clipping with no hair removal. Three trials involving 3193 people compared shaving with clipping and found that there were statistically significantly more SSIs when people were shaved rather than clipped (RR 2.02, 95%CI 1.21 to 3.36). Seven trials involving 1213 people compared shaving with removing hair using a depilatory cream and found that there were statistically significantly more SSIs when people were shaved than when a cream was used (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.24). No trials were found that compared clipping with a depilatory cream. One trial compared shaving on the day of surgery with shaving the day before surgery and one trial compared clipping on the day of surgery with clipping the day before surgery; neither trial found a statistically significant difference in the number of SSIs. No trials were found that compared depilatory cream at different times or that compared hair removal in different settings.
The evidence finds no difference in SSIs among patients who have had hair removed prior to surgery and those who have not. If it is necessary to remove hair then both clipping and depilatory creams results in fewer SSIs than shaving using a razor. There is no difference in SSIs when patients are shaved or clipped one day before surgery or on the day of surgery.

21 Followers
 · 
1,511 Views
  • Source
    • "Hair removal with clipping or depilatory creams results in fewer surgical-site infections than does shaving with a razor. However, there was no difference in the infection rate in patients who had hair removed on the day before or the day of surgery, regardless of the method of hair removal [50]. Skin and nasal sterilisation has been evaluated as a means of reducing prosthesis infection by attempting to eradicate Staphylococcus contamination. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction We reviewed retrospectively the use of penile prostheses, including the indications and complications of penile prosthesis surgery. Methods We identified publications and the reported advances in penile prosthesis surgery between 1987 and 2012 in Pub-Med, and published information from American Medical Systems, Inc. (Minnetonka, MN, USA) and Coloplast Corporation (Humlebaek, Denmark), using the keywords ‘penile prosthesis’, ‘erectile dysfunction’, ‘mechanical reliability’, ‘complications’ and ‘infection’. Results We describe the novel indications for the use of penile prostheses, the significant advances in implant designs with improved mechanical reliability, the changing landscape of device infection, and the current management of complications. Sixty-eight publications with a grade A, B and C level of evidence are cited. Conclusion The clinical indications to implant a penile prosthesis have expanded beyond organic erectile dysfunction. With the many different devices currently available, the choice of which device to implant can be tailored based on an individual’s unique medical conditions, manual dexterity and expectations, and surgeon preference. There must be a conscious effort to prevent device infection, in the light of the development of increasingly virulent organisms. Penile prosthesis surgery is an integral part of the treatment of erectile dysfunction when non-surgical options fail or are contraindicated.
    09/2013; 11(3):245–253. DOI:10.1016/j.aju.2013.05.002
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the commonest hospital acquired infection that occurs in early postoperative period in surgical patients and accounts for 38% of infections in surgical patients and 31.1% of all infections in trauma patients. Ifs frequency increase parallels increase in number of risk factors. Prevention of peri-operative infection necessitates management directed at optimizing of patient factors like smoking, nutritional factors, immune-suppression, obesity and cardiovascular status. Use of principles like antibiotic prophylaxis, aseptic theatre conditions, respect of soft tissues during operation, local therapy and other modern patient safety practices is mandatory. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be started early pre-operatively at least 30-60 minutes before incision and antibiotic level exceeding minimal inhibitory concentration for infecting organism or before inflation of a tourniquet if applicable to closure of wound. Aiming at short preoperative stay in hospital, and pre-washing of the area concerned before cleaning with antiseptic are also imperative in reducing SSI. Preoperative skin preparation is an important element in prevention of infection, but removes only up to 80% of skin flora. Standard surgical antisepsis is an accepted method and involves scrubbing with antiseptic solutions. Chlorhexidine gluconate compared with povodine iodine showed a prolonged reduction in skin contamination and with less toxicity and skin irritation. Aqueous surgical hand scrubs are equivalent to traditional scrubs with regard to reduction of skin contamination, with higher surgeons protocol compliancy compared to traditional scrubs. The use of laminar flow and ultra-violet light in theatre is associated with decreased rates of postoperative skin infections and contamination. Respect of soft tissues during surgery through decrease in excessive use of diathermy, contusions and excessive tension is advised. Wound closure without tension and no dead space is encouraged. Issues of wound drainage have not been shown to reduce rates of infection. When used, closed suction drainage is better than open drain. SSI is a common complication and it is in the interest of the surgeon and the patient that it is prevented as it can be associated with morbidity, mortality and increased resource utilization. This article will deal with peri-operative management of the orthopaedic patient using evidence based benefits to the current practices available from recent updates, reviews and prospective randomized control trials, and some retrospective studies.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sternale Wundinfektionen stellen ernste Komplikationen nach herzchirurgischen Eingriffen dar, gehen mit erhöhter Morbidität und Letalität einher, führen zu einer Verlängerung der Krankenhausverweildauer und verursachen somit zusätzliche Kosten. Die Strategie zur gezielten Infektionsprävention ist vielschichtig und muss alle Berufsgruppen involvieren, die den herzchirurgischen Patienten betreuen und behandeln. Präoperative Maßnahmen wie Staphylococcus-aureus-/MRSA-Screening, Dekolonisation, Clipping statt Rasur, die korrekte Einhaltung der perioperativen Antibiotikaprophylaxe sowie die intraoperative Blutglukosekontrolle, postoperative Verbandwechsel und eine systematische Überwachung postoperativer Wundinfektionen, Compliancebeobachtungen und Schulungen/Training des medizinischen Personals sind essenzielle Bestandteile eines umfassenden Bündels zur Infektionsprävention, um postoperative Wundinfektionen zu vermeiden. Um nachvollziehbar sicherzustellen, dass diese vielschichtigen prä-, intra- und postoperativen Maßnahmen eingehalten werden, haben sich die Etablierung und der Einsatz einer Checkliste bewährt. Deep sternal wound infections (DSWI) are a severe complication after cardiac surgery. They are associated with higher morbidity and mortality as well as prolonged hospital stay of patients and additional costs. The strategy for specific infection prevention is complex and has to involve all healthcare professionals providing care to patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Preoperative Staphylococcus aureus/MRSA screening, decolonization measures, hair clipping instead of shaving, adherence to perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative blood glucose control, and change of dressings as well as infection control measures (e.g., active surveillance of surgical site infections (SSI), compliance observations, and instruction/training of healthcare professionals) are essential in order to prevent SSI. By implementing and using a checklist, it has already been proven that the complex measures during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative course of events could be reliably reproduced. SchlüsselwörterSurveillance–Infektionsprävention–Wundinfektionen–Compliance–Herzchirurgie KeywordsSurveillance–Infection control–Surgical wound infection–Guideline adherence–Heart surgery
    Zeitschrift für Herz- Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 06/2011; 25(3):148-153. DOI:10.1007/s00398-011-0854-x
Show more