子宫切除术时阴道消毒准备:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Sarah K Rozycki, Vylan Nguyen, Natalia Miroballi, Emily C Rutledge, Ethan M Balk, Danielle D Antosh
{"title":"子宫切除术时阴道消毒准备:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sarah K Rozycki, Vylan Nguyen, Natalia Miroballi, Emily C Rutledge, Ethan M Balk, Danielle D Antosh","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.12.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI) after hysterectomy using vaginal antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) versus povidone-iodine (PI).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were queried from January 1, 1985 through Dec 7, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparisons of interventions (NRCIs) of CHG and PI vaginal antiseptic preparation prior to hysterectomy were included. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by the CDC. Secondary outcomes included postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) and vaginal culture specimens. Large single group studies of vaginal CHG reporting adverse events and case reports of desquamation were also included.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>Methodologic quality of each study was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies Intervention tools. Restricted maximum likelihood meta-analyses of odds ratios (OR) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>5,289 abstracts were screened. 10 met inclusion with a total of 9,618 participants. The studies included 4 RCTs (n=306), 3 prospective NRCIs (n=1,089), and 3 retrospective NRCIs (n=8,223). PI was compared to 4% CHG in 4 studies (n=2,491), 2% CHG in 2 studies (n=236), 0.1% in 1 study (n=50), and both 2% and 4% CHG in 1 study (n=49). Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in SSIs, although SSIs were somewhat more common with CHG (summary OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91-1.63). The relative effect of antiseptic preparations on UTIs was unclear, with an imprecise summary OR (1.18, 95% CI 0.65-2.12). Positive vaginal cultures were less common with CHG preparation (summary OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27). Two studies reported no adverse events with CHG, and two found no difference in vaginal irritation when compared with PI. Two case reports described vaginal desquamation or hypersensitivity with CHG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no evidence of a difference in postoperative infection with CHG use compared to PI, but CHG vaginal preparation results in lower rates of positive intraoperative vaginal cultures. Despite inadequate reporting, risk of adverse events appears low.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaginal Antiseptic Preparation at the Time of Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah K Rozycki, Vylan Nguyen, Natalia Miroballi, Emily C Rutledge, Ethan M Balk, Danielle D Antosh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.12.031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI) after hysterectomy using vaginal antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) versus povidone-iodine (PI).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were queried from January 1, 1985 through Dec 7, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparisons of interventions (NRCIs) of CHG and PI vaginal antiseptic preparation prior to hysterectomy were included. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by the CDC. Secondary outcomes included postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) and vaginal culture specimens. Large single group studies of vaginal CHG reporting adverse events and case reports of desquamation were also included.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>Methodologic quality of each study was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies Intervention tools. Restricted maximum likelihood meta-analyses of odds ratios (OR) were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>5,289 abstracts were screened. 10 met inclusion with a total of 9,618 participants. The studies included 4 RCTs (n=306), 3 prospective NRCIs (n=1,089), and 3 retrospective NRCIs (n=8,223). PI was compared to 4% CHG in 4 studies (n=2,491), 2% CHG in 2 studies (n=236), 0.1% in 1 study (n=50), and both 2% and 4% CHG in 1 study (n=49). Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in SSIs, although SSIs were somewhat more common with CHG (summary OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91-1.63). The relative effect of antiseptic preparations on UTIs was unclear, with an imprecise summary OR (1.18, 95% CI 0.65-2.12). Positive vaginal cultures were less common with CHG preparation (summary OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27). Two studies reported no adverse events with CHG, and two found no difference in vaginal irritation when compared with PI. Two case reports described vaginal desquamation or hypersensitivity with CHG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no evidence of a difference in postoperative infection with CHG use compared to PI, but CHG vaginal preparation results in lower rates of positive intraoperative vaginal cultures. Despite inadequate reporting, risk of adverse events appears low.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.12.031\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.12.031","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较葡萄糖酸氯己定(CHG)阴道消毒与聚维酮碘(PI)子宫切除术后手术部位感染(SSI)的发生率。数据来源:PubMed, Embase和Clinicaltrials.gov数据库从1985年1月1日至2023年12月7日进行查询。研究资格标准:纳入随机对照试验(RCTs)和非随机对照试验,比较子宫切除术前CHG和PI阴道消毒制剂的干预措施(nrci)。主要终点为CDC定义的SSI。次要结果包括术后尿路感染(uti)和阴道培养标本。报告阴道CHG不良事件的大型单组研究和报告脱屑的病例也被纳入。研究评价和综合方法:使用原始Cochrane偏倚风险和非随机研究偏倚风险干预工具评估每项研究的方法学质量。对优势比(OR)进行了限制性最大似然荟萃分析。结果:共筛选5289篇摘要。10项符合纳入标准,共9,618名参与者。这些研究包括4项rct (n=306), 3项前瞻性nrci (n= 1089)和3项回顾性nrci (n= 8223)。4项研究(n= 2491)将PI与4% CHG进行比较,2项研究(n=236)将PI与2% CHG进行比较,1项研究(n=50)将PI与0.1% CHG进行比较,1项研究(n=49)将PI与2%和4% CHG进行比较。荟萃分析显示,ssi在CHG中更常见,但ssi在CHG中无统计学差异(总比值比1.22,95% CI 0.91-1.63)。抗菌制剂对尿路感染的相对影响尚不清楚,总结OR不精确(1.18,95% CI 0.65-2.12)。阴道培养阳性在CHG制剂中较少见(总结OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27)。两项研究报告CHG没有不良事件,两项研究发现与PI相比,阴道刺激没有差异。两例报告描述阴道脱屑或超敏反应伴CHG。结论:与PI相比,CHG的使用在术后感染方面没有差异,但CHG阴道准备术中阴道培养阳性率较低。尽管报告不充分,但不良事件的风险似乎很低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vaginal Antiseptic Preparation at the Time of Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI) after hysterectomy using vaginal antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) versus povidone-iodine (PI).

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were queried from January 1, 1985 through Dec 7, 2023.

Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparisons of interventions (NRCIs) of CHG and PI vaginal antiseptic preparation prior to hysterectomy were included. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by the CDC. Secondary outcomes included postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) and vaginal culture specimens. Large single group studies of vaginal CHG reporting adverse events and case reports of desquamation were also included.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Methodologic quality of each study was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies Intervention tools. Restricted maximum likelihood meta-analyses of odds ratios (OR) were conducted.

Results: 5,289 abstracts were screened. 10 met inclusion with a total of 9,618 participants. The studies included 4 RCTs (n=306), 3 prospective NRCIs (n=1,089), and 3 retrospective NRCIs (n=8,223). PI was compared to 4% CHG in 4 studies (n=2,491), 2% CHG in 2 studies (n=236), 0.1% in 1 study (n=50), and both 2% and 4% CHG in 1 study (n=49). Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in SSIs, although SSIs were somewhat more common with CHG (summary OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91-1.63). The relative effect of antiseptic preparations on UTIs was unclear, with an imprecise summary OR (1.18, 95% CI 0.65-2.12). Positive vaginal cultures were less common with CHG preparation (summary OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27). Two studies reported no adverse events with CHG, and two found no difference in vaginal irritation when compared with PI. Two case reports described vaginal desquamation or hypersensitivity with CHG.

Conclusion: There is no evidence of a difference in postoperative infection with CHG use compared to PI, but CHG vaginal preparation results in lower rates of positive intraoperative vaginal cultures. Despite inadequate reporting, risk of adverse events appears low.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
×
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