Sterile technique may include the use of sterile equipment, sterile gowns, and gloves (Perry et al., 2014). In health care, sterile technique is always used when the integrity of the skin is accessed, impaired, or broken (e.g., burns or surgical incisions). It is also used when performing a sterile procedure at the bedside, such as inserting devices into sterile areas of the body or cavities (e.g., insertion of chest tube, central venous line, or indwelling urinary catheter). Sterile technique is most commonly practised in operating rooms, labour and delivery rooms, and special procedures or diagnostic areas. Principles of sterile technique help control and prevent infection, prevent the transmission of all microorganisms in a given area, and include all techniques that are practised to maintain sterility. In the literature, surgical asepsis and sterile technique are commonly used interchangeably, but they mean different things (Kennedy, 2013). Sterile technique is a set of specific practices and procedures performed to make equipment and areas free from all microorganisms and to maintain that sterility (BC Centre for Disease Control, 2010). Surgical asepsis is the absence of all microorganisms within any type of invasive procedure. To access this article visit the BEVA online library on .1.5 Surgical Asepsis and the Principles of Sterile Technique Surgical AsepsisĪsepsis refers to the absence of infectious material or infection. It is important to note that this study did not investigate the efficacy of other alcohol-based antiseptics such as isopropanol or n-propanol. A 90-second wet contact time using gauze sponges is recommended. Significant differences were noted between CHG and both ETUC and ETS.īottom line: Ethanol-based antisepsis can be used for skin preparation prior to performing immediate, short-duration procedures in horses. No significant difference in cost‐benefit was found between CHG and ETC. In hind limbs, CHG had significantly greater mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction than ETUC and ETS. In forelimbs, there was no significant difference in mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction between any groups. There was no significant difference in mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction between CHG and ETC in either forelimbs or hind limbs. A cost-benefit analysis was performed by comparing the mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction per dollar cost between CHG and each of the ET groups. The cost of each treatment was determined based on the cost of the consumables and the cost of the technical time required. Mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction was then compared between groups. Bacterial counts were log 10 transformed and averaged between duplicates. Samples were collected pre‐ and post‐treatment and plated in duplicate. By horse, each limb was randomly assigned to a treatment group: 5 minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate to a clipped site (CHG) 90 second scrub using 80% ethanol to a clipped site (ETC) 90 second contact with 80% ethanol applied as a spray to a clipped site (ETS) and 90 second scrub using 80% ethanol to an unclipped site (ETUC). In total, 41 horses were included, and each horse had a 5 x 5 cm patch clipped over the distal interphalangeal joint of three limbs. The study was titled, “Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis of the distal limbs of horses” and was authored by Aimie J. This randomized trial aimed to determine whether ethanol‐based antisepsis reduces bacterial counts on the equine distal limb comparable to a current chlorhexidine scrub method and determine the most effective application technique for the product. Researchers found that ethanol-based antisepsis can be used for skin preparation prior to performing immediate, short-duration procedures in horses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |