在外科手部消毒中,手干产品是否必须无菌?前后对照研究。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Tingting Zhang, Qin Qin, Ruoyu Cao, Renqiang Lu, Dongxue Li
{"title":"在外科手部消毒中,手干产品是否必须无菌?前后对照研究。","authors":"Tingting Zhang, Qin Qin, Ruoyu Cao, Renqiang Lu, Dongxue Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Using sterile hand-drying products for surgical hand antisepsis incurs high economic and labor costs.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels for surgical hand antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Using sterile hand-drying products for surgical hand antisepsis incurs high economic and labor costs.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of clean paper towels, sterile cloth towels, and sterile paper towels for surgical hand antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

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
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)
×
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