Assessment of Pre-operative Vaginal Preparation for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Michelle Marinone, Jonathan Serino, Stephanie Stroever, Nicole Brzozowski, Andrea Kliss, David Doo, Linus Chuang
{"title":"Assessment of Pre-operative Vaginal Preparation for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.","authors":"Michelle Marinone,&nbsp;Jonathan Serino,&nbsp;Stephanie Stroever,&nbsp;Nicole Brzozowski,&nbsp;Andrea Kliss,&nbsp;David Doo,&nbsp;Linus Chuang","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2023.00013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine the difference in microbial growth from the vagina and uterine manipulator among patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy after randomization to one of three vaginal preparation solutions (10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in an academic community hospital. Patients were ≥ 18 years old and scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and malignant indications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients were identified and randomized into each arm. Prior to surgery, the surgical team prepared the vaginal field using 10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine, according to group assignment. Cultures were collected from the vagina after initial preparation, prior to the colpotomy, and on surfaces of the uterine manipulator. Bacterial count from the baseline vaginal fornix/cervical canal cultures did not differ significantly among the three groups. There was a difference in bacterial count among the second cervical canal/vaginal fornix cultures (p < 0.01), with the Povidone-iodine arm demonstrating the highest level of growth of cultures (93.8%), followed by 2% Chlorhexidine (47.4%), and 4% Chlorhexidine (20%). There was no difference in growth on the uterine manipulator handle and no difference in vaginal itching or burning was found across the three arms postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bacterial growth prior to colpotomy was the lowest with 4% Chlorhexidine followed by 2% Chlorhexidine, the Povidone-iodine group exhibited the highest bacterial growth. There was no difference in moderate to severe vaginal itching or burning. This showed that 4% Chlorhexidine is superior in reducing bacterial growth when used in laparoscopic hysterectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10473181/pdf/e2023.00013.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2023.00013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Determine the difference in microbial growth from the vagina and uterine manipulator among patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy after randomization to one of three vaginal preparation solutions (10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine).

Method: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in an academic community hospital. Patients were ≥ 18 years old and scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and malignant indications.

Results: Fifty patients were identified and randomized into each arm. Prior to surgery, the surgical team prepared the vaginal field using 10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine, according to group assignment. Cultures were collected from the vagina after initial preparation, prior to the colpotomy, and on surfaces of the uterine manipulator. Bacterial count from the baseline vaginal fornix/cervical canal cultures did not differ significantly among the three groups. There was a difference in bacterial count among the second cervical canal/vaginal fornix cultures (p < 0.01), with the Povidone-iodine arm demonstrating the highest level of growth of cultures (93.8%), followed by 2% Chlorhexidine (47.4%), and 4% Chlorhexidine (20%). There was no difference in growth on the uterine manipulator handle and no difference in vaginal itching or burning was found across the three arms postoperatively.

Conclusion: Bacterial growth prior to colpotomy was the lowest with 4% Chlorhexidine followed by 2% Chlorhexidine, the Povidone-iodine group exhibited the highest bacterial growth. There was no difference in moderate to severe vaginal itching or burning. This showed that 4% Chlorhexidine is superior in reducing bacterial growth when used in laparoscopic hysterectomy.

腹腔镜子宫切除术前阴道准备的评估。
目的:确定腹腔镜子宫切除术患者在随机选择三种阴道制剂(10%聚维酮碘、2%氯己定或4%氯己定)后,阴道和子宫操作器微生物生长的差异。方法:这是一项在学术社区医院进行的前瞻性随机对照试验。患者年龄≥18岁,计划进行腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗良恶性适应症。结果:确定了50名患者,并将其随机分为每一组。手术前,手术团队根据分组使用10%聚维酮碘、2%氯己定或4%氯己定准备阴道区域。在初次准备后、阴道切开术前和子宫操作器表面收集阴道培养物。基线阴道穹窿/宫颈管培养的细菌计数在三组之间没有显著差异。第二宫颈管/阴道穹隆培养物的细菌计数存在差异(p 结论:阴道切开术前细菌生长最低,4%氯己定和2%氯己定次之,聚维酮碘组细菌生长最高。中度至重度阴道瘙痒或烧灼感没有差异。这表明4%氯己定在腹腔镜子宫切除术中用于减少细菌生长方面是优越的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信