Alcohol-Based Versus Aqueous Skin Antisepsis Before Surgical Fixation of Open Fractures: A Combined Analysis of 2 Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trials.

Kyle Gouveia,Sofia Bzovsky,Nathan N O'Hara,Mark Phillips,Lehana Thabane,Kyle J Jeray,Rachel M Reilly,Mohit Bhandari,Gerard P Slobogean,Sheila Sprague,
{"title":"Alcohol-Based Versus Aqueous Skin Antisepsis Before Surgical Fixation of Open Fractures: A Combined Analysis of 2 Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trials.","authors":"Kyle Gouveia,Sofia Bzovsky,Nathan N O'Hara,Mark Phillips,Lehana Thabane,Kyle J Jeray,Rachel M Reilly,Mohit Bhandari,Gerard P Slobogean,Sheila Sprague,","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nSkin antisepsis remains a vital component in prophylaxis against surgical site infection (SSI); however, for open fractures, it is unclear whether alcohol-based or aqueous solutions should be preferred. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of alcohol-based and aqueous skin antisepsis solutions, using data from the 2 PREP-IT trials, with respect to the risks of SSI and unplanned reoperation following surgery for an open fracture.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIndividual patient data from the 2 cluster-randomized, crossover clinical trials were combined to create a single data set of patients undergoing surgery for an open fracture. A regression model was used to analyze the effects of an alcohol-based versus an aqueous solution, as well as for potential interaction with the use of chlorhexidine or iodine as the primary agent. The primary outcome was SSI within 90 days.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 3,338 participants undergoing surgery for an open fracture were included in the final analysis, with 1,700 receiving an alcohol-based solution and 1,638 receiving an aqueous solution. Overall, the use of an alcohol-based skin antiseptic solution, compared with an aqueous solution, did not reduce the risk of SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.95), or the risk of unplanned reoperation at 1 year (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.28; p = 0.88). Planned subgroup analyses also found no significant difference in the risk of SSI or unplanned reoperation when participants were stratified by Gustilo-Anderson type, fracture location, or the primary ingredient of the skin preparation solution (chlorhexidine versus iodophor).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThis analysis found no difference in the risk of SSI or reoperation when comparing alcohol-based and aqueous skin preparation solutions. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrated no harm with use of an alcohol-based solution for open fractures, and the PREPARE trial found that skin preparation with 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol was associated with a reduced risk of SSI for closed fractures. Given these findings, surgeons may wish to consider streamlining their policy by treating all fractures with a single skin antiseptic, 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"600 1","pages":"4-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Skin antisepsis remains a vital component in prophylaxis against surgical site infection (SSI); however, for open fractures, it is unclear whether alcohol-based or aqueous solutions should be preferred. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of alcohol-based and aqueous skin antisepsis solutions, using data from the 2 PREP-IT trials, with respect to the risks of SSI and unplanned reoperation following surgery for an open fracture. METHODS Individual patient data from the 2 cluster-randomized, crossover clinical trials were combined to create a single data set of patients undergoing surgery for an open fracture. A regression model was used to analyze the effects of an alcohol-based versus an aqueous solution, as well as for potential interaction with the use of chlorhexidine or iodine as the primary agent. The primary outcome was SSI within 90 days. RESULTS A total of 3,338 participants undergoing surgery for an open fracture were included in the final analysis, with 1,700 receiving an alcohol-based solution and 1,638 receiving an aqueous solution. Overall, the use of an alcohol-based skin antiseptic solution, compared with an aqueous solution, did not reduce the risk of SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.48; p = 0.95), or the risk of unplanned reoperation at 1 year (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.28; p = 0.88). Planned subgroup analyses also found no significant difference in the risk of SSI or unplanned reoperation when participants were stratified by Gustilo-Anderson type, fracture location, or the primary ingredient of the skin preparation solution (chlorhexidine versus iodophor). CONCLUSIONS This analysis found no difference in the risk of SSI or reoperation when comparing alcohol-based and aqueous skin preparation solutions. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrated no harm with use of an alcohol-based solution for open fractures, and the PREPARE trial found that skin preparation with 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol was associated with a reduced risk of SSI for closed fractures. Given these findings, surgeons may wish to consider streamlining their policy by treating all fractures with a single skin antiseptic, 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
开放性骨折手术固定前酒精基与水基皮肤消毒:两项聚类随机交叉试验的综合分析
背景:皮肤消毒仍然是预防手术部位感染(SSI)的重要组成部分;然而,对于开放性骨折,目前尚不清楚是采用醇基溶液还是水溶液。本研究的目的是比较酒精基皮肤防腐液和水性皮肤防腐液的使用,使用2项PREP-IT试验的数据,比较开放性骨折术后SSI和非计划再手术的风险。方法将来自2个集群随机交叉临床试验的个体患者数据结合起来,形成开放性骨折手术患者的单一数据集。回归模型用于分析醇基溶液与水溶液的影响,以及与使用氯己定或碘作为主要试剂的潜在相互作用。主要终点为90天内的SSI。结果共有3338名接受开放性骨折手术的参与者被纳入最终分析,其中1700人接受醇基溶液,1638人接受水溶液。总的来说,与水溶液相比,使用含酒精的皮肤消毒液并没有降低90天SSI的风险(优势比[OR], 0.99;95%置信区间[CI], 0.66 ~ 1.48;p = 0.95),或1年后意外再手术的风险(or, 0.98;95% CI, 0.75 ~ 1.28;P = 0.88)。计划亚组分析也发现,当参与者按Gustilo-Anderson类型、骨折位置或皮肤准备溶液的主要成分(氯己定与碘伏)分层时,SSI或计划外再手术的风险没有显著差异。结论:本分析发现,酒精基和水基皮肤制备溶液在SSI或再手术的风险方面没有差异。此外,该分析表明,使用酒精基溶液治疗开放性骨折没有危害,PREPARE试验发现,在74%异丙醇中使用0.7%碘聚丙稀的皮肤制剂可降低闭合性骨折的SSI风险。鉴于这些发现,外科医生可能希望考虑简化他们的治疗策略,用一种单一的皮肤杀菌剂治疗所有骨折,0.7%的碘聚丙稀和74%的异丙醇。证据水平:治疗性三级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信