4.1 Article

The effect of surgical preparation technique on the bacterial load of surgical needles and suture material used during strabismus surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 230-233

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.03.005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Nationwide Children's Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE To investigate the effectiveness of 3 surgical preparation techniques in decreasing bacterial contamination of needles and suture material during strabismus surgery. METHODS Consecutive patients requiring 2-muscle strabismus surgery were randomized into 1 of 3 groups. In Group A, patients' periocular skin and bulbar conjunctivae underwent preparation with 5% povidone-iodine; the drape was placed without regard to eyebrows; and an open wire-loop lid speculum was used. Group B patients underwent the same preparation as Group A patients; however, the eyelashes and eyebrows were scrubbed with 5% povidone-iodine on cotton tip applicators, and the drape was placed to exclude the eyebrows from the surgical field. Group C patients underwent the same preparation as Group B patients; however, a bladed lid speculum was used during surgery to exclude some of the eyelashes from the surgical field. After the procedure, all needles and suture materials were sent separately for aerobic culture. The data were analyzed for differences in contamination rates between the groups. RESULTS Of 77 patients, 24 (31.4%) had either a needle and/or suture contaminant. Groups A, B, and C had mean contamination rates of 29.6%, 34.6%, and 29.2%, respectively. There was no significant statistical variation in contamination among the 3 groups. The most common organism identified was a coagulase-negative staphylococcus strain. CONCLUSIONS More meticulous sterile preparation of the surgical field did not result in a meaningful reduction in suture or needle contamination rates during strabismus surgery. (J AAPOS 2011;15:230-233)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available