Is sterility essential for hand-drying products in surgical hand antisepsis? A controlled before-and-after study.

IF 3.8 3区医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES

American journal of infection control Pub Date : 2025-07-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2025.07.002

Tingting Zhang, Qin Qin, Ruoyu Cao, Renqiang Lu, Dongxue Li

{"title":"Is sterility essential for hand-drying products in surgical hand antisepsis? A controlled before-and-after study.","authors":"Tingting Zhang, Qin Qin, Ruoyu Cao, Renqiang Lu, Dongxue Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Using sterile hand-drying products for surgical hand antisepsis incurs high economic and labor costs.Aim: This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels for surgical hand antisepsis.Methods: In March 2024, a controlled study was conducted with 50 medical volunteers from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The study compared bacterial cultures on hands after drying with different products and using a rinse-free hand disinfectant, while also calculating the hand-drying cost per surgical procedure.Findings: Colony counts from hand bacterial cultures after drying with clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels were 0.01 (0.00, 0.18) CFU/cm², 0.30 (0.05, 0.77) CFU/cm², and 0.01 (0.00, 0.08) CFU/cm², with a significant difference (p < 0.001). After using rinse-free hand disinfectant, counts were 0.00 CFU/cm² for all methods, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Total bacterial colonies were below 5 CFU/cm², meeting surgical hand antisepsis standards. All products had a 100% qualification rate, with costs of 0.20 RMB for clean paper towels, 5.70 RMB for sterile cloth towels, and 8.20 RMB for sterile paper towels.Conclusion: Clean paper towels are more effective at reducing hand bacteria and more cost-efficient than sterile hand-drying products, making them ideal for reducing operating costs and widely applicable in medical institutions.","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.07.002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Using sterile hand-drying products for surgical hand antisepsis incurs high economic and labor costs.

Aim: This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels for surgical hand antisepsis.

Methods: In March 2024, a controlled study was conducted with 50 medical volunteers from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The study compared bacterial cultures on hands after drying with different products and using a rinse-free hand disinfectant, while also calculating the hand-drying cost per surgical procedure.

Findings: Colony counts from hand bacterial cultures after drying with clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels were 0.01 (0.00, 0.18) CFU/cm², 0.30 (0.05, 0.77) CFU/cm², and 0.01 (0.00, 0.08) CFU/cm², with a significant difference (p < 0.001). After using rinse-free hand disinfectant, counts were 0.00 CFU/cm² for all methods, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Total bacterial colonies were below 5 CFU/cm², meeting surgical hand antisepsis standards. All products had a 100% qualification rate, with costs of 0.20 RMB for clean paper towels, 5.70 RMB for sterile cloth towels, and 8.20 RMB for sterile paper towels.

Conclusion: Clean paper towels are more effective at reducing hand bacteria and more cost-efficient than sterile hand-drying products, making them ideal for reducing operating costs and widely applicable in medical institutions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在外科手部消毒中，手干产品是否必须无菌？前后对照研究。

背景：使用无菌干手产品进行外科手部消毒具有较高的经济成本和人工成本。目的：本研究评估清洁纸巾、无菌毛巾和无菌纸巾在外科手部消毒中的效果和成本效益。方法：于2024年3月，对重庆医科大学第二附属医院50名医学志愿者进行对照研究。该研究比较了用不同产品和使用免冲洗洗手消毒剂烘干双手后的细菌培养情况，同时还计算了每次手术的烘干成本。结果：用干净纸巾、无菌毛巾和无菌纸巾干燥后的手部细菌培养菌落计数分别为0.01 (0.00,0.18)CFU/cm²、0.30 (0.05,0.77)CFU/cm²和0.01 (0.00,0.08)CFU/cm²，差异有统计学意义（p < 0.001）。使用免冲洗手消毒液后，各方法计数均为0.00 CFU/cm²，差异无统计学意义（p < 0.05）。菌落总数低于5 CFU/cm²，符合手术手消毒标准。所有产品合格率100%，清洁纸巾成本0.20元，无菌毛巾成本5.70元，无菌纸巾成本8.20元。结论：与无菌干手产品相比，清洁纸巾能更有效地减少手部细菌，成本效益更高，是降低操作成本的理想选择，可在医疗机构广泛应用。

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

American journal of infection control 医学-传染病学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

4.10%

发文量

479

审稿时长

24 days

期刊介绍： AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)