The Experts below are selected from a list of 270 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Dan Miron - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
preoperative topical moxifloxacin 0 5 and Povidone Iodine 5 0 versus Povidone Iodine 5 0 alone to reduce bacterial colonization in the conjunctival sac
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Orly Halachimieyal, Yaron Lang, Yoram Keness, Dan MironAbstract:Purpose To assess the effectiveness of adding topical moxifloxacin 0.5% to topical Povidone–Iodine 5.0% for preoperative reduction of bacterial recovery from the conjunctiva. Setting Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel. Methods The study population comprised adult patients scheduled for elective intraocular surgery. Two hours before surgery, patients were randomly assigned to topical therapy with moxifloxacin 0.5% drops (study group) or normal saline drops (control group). Povidone–Iodine 5% solution was also instilled in the conjunctival sac in both groups for 3 minutes immediately before surgery. Conjunctival cultures were obtained before prophylactic therapy and just before surgery. The major outcome measures were the rate of bacterial colonization and bacterial type in conjunctival cultures obtained after instillation of Povidone–Iodine and immediately before surgery. Results Overall, 464 patients completed the study; there were 237 patients in the study group and 227 patients in the control group. Positive conjunctival cultures were obtained before prophylactic therapy in 91 patients (38%) in the study group and 94 patients (41%) in the control group and just before surgery in 10 patients (4%) and 6 patients (3%), respectively; neither difference was statistically significant. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most prevalent bacteria and was found equally in both groups. Conclusions Treatment with Povidone–Iodine 5.0% alone was effective in preoperative reduction of conjunctival bacterial colonization. Adding topical moxifloxacin 0.5% to Povidone–Iodine 5.0% had no significant effect on further reduction in the bacterial colonization rate.
Atef Alsharif - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
chlorhexidine alcohol versus Povidone Iodine for surgical site antisepsis
The New England Journal of Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Rabih O Darouiche, Matthew J Wall, Mary F Otterson, Alexandra L B Webb, Matthew M Carrick, Harold J Miller, Samir S Awad, Cynthia T Crosby, Michael C Mosier, Atef AlsharifAbstract:BACKGROUND Since the patient’s skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. We hypothesized that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine–alcohol is more protective against infection than is Povidone–Iodine. METHODS We randomly assigned adults undergoing clean-contaminated surgery in six hospitals to preoperative skin preparation with either chlorhexidine–alcohol scrub or Povidone–Iodine scrub and paint. The primary outcome was any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical-site infections. RESULTS A total of 849 subjects (409 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 440 in the Povidone–Iodine group) qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the Povidone–Iodine group (9.5% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.004; relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was significantly more protective than Povidone–Iodine against both superficial incisional infections (4.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.008) and deep incisional infections (1% vs. 3%, P = 0.05) but not against organ-space infections (4.4% vs. 4.5%). Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained in the study during the 30-day follow-up period. Adverse events were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS Preoperative cleansing of the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine–alcohol is superior to cleansing with Povidone–Iodine for preventing surgical-site infection after cleancontaminated surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00290290.)
Debbie Norman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The use of Povidone-Iodine in superficial partial-thickness burns.
British journal of nursing, 2003Co-Authors: Debbie NormanAbstract:Infection is of primary concern to those practitioners treating burns patients, as it is one of the primary complications associated with acute wounds and particularly with superficial partial-thickness burns. In the fight to reduce the risks many practitioners deploy common antimicrobial agents prophylactically to help reduce risks, e.g. Povidone-Iodine. This review will examine the evidence to support this practice. The deployment of Povidone-Iodine in wound care is highly controversial, with questions being raised concerning not only the effectiveness of the product but also its safety and effect on wound healing. The use of Povidone-Iodine has been investigated both in vitro and in vivo, resulting in conflicting and often contradictory results. Of the work completed to date, researchers have failed to identify or control for extraneous variables which makes it difficult to compare and interpret research findings. The potential benefits or harm that the use of Povidone-Iodine may elicit in acute wounds...
-
The use of Povidone-Iodine in superficial partial-thickness burns.
British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 2003Co-Authors: Debbie NormanAbstract:Infection is of primary concern to those practitioners treating burns patients, as it is one of the primary complications associated with acute wounds and particularly with superficial partial-thickness burns. In the fight to reduce the risks, many practitioners deploy common antimicrobials agents prophylactically to help reduce risks, e.g. Povidone-Iodine. This review will examine the evidence to support this practice. The deployment of Povidone-Iodine in wound care is highly controversial, with questions being raised concerning not only the effectiveness of the product but also its safety and effect on wound healing. The use of Povidone-Iodine has been investigated both in vitro and in vivo, resulting in conflicting and often contradictory results. Of the work completed to date, researchers have failed to identify or control for extraneous variables which makes it difficult to compare and interpret research findings. The potential benefits or harm that the use of Povidone-Iodine may elicit in acute wounds is yet to be established.
Orly Halachimieyal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
preoperative topical moxifloxacin 0 5 and Povidone Iodine 5 0 versus Povidone Iodine 5 0 alone to reduce bacterial colonization in the conjunctival sac
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 2009Co-Authors: Orly Halachimieyal, Yaron Lang, Yoram Keness, Dan MironAbstract:Purpose To assess the effectiveness of adding topical moxifloxacin 0.5% to topical Povidone–Iodine 5.0% for preoperative reduction of bacterial recovery from the conjunctiva. Setting Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel. Methods The study population comprised adult patients scheduled for elective intraocular surgery. Two hours before surgery, patients were randomly assigned to topical therapy with moxifloxacin 0.5% drops (study group) or normal saline drops (control group). Povidone–Iodine 5% solution was also instilled in the conjunctival sac in both groups for 3 minutes immediately before surgery. Conjunctival cultures were obtained before prophylactic therapy and just before surgery. The major outcome measures were the rate of bacterial colonization and bacterial type in conjunctival cultures obtained after instillation of Povidone–Iodine and immediately before surgery. Results Overall, 464 patients completed the study; there were 237 patients in the study group and 227 patients in the control group. Positive conjunctival cultures were obtained before prophylactic therapy in 91 patients (38%) in the study group and 94 patients (41%) in the control group and just before surgery in 10 patients (4%) and 6 patients (3%), respectively; neither difference was statistically significant. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most prevalent bacteria and was found equally in both groups. Conclusions Treatment with Povidone–Iodine 5.0% alone was effective in preoperative reduction of conjunctival bacterial colonization. Adding topical moxifloxacin 0.5% to Povidone–Iodine 5.0% had no significant effect on further reduction in the bacterial colonization rate.
Rabih O Darouiche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
chlorhexidine alcohol versus Povidone Iodine for surgical site antisepsis
The New England Journal of Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Rabih O Darouiche, Matthew J Wall, Mary F Otterson, Alexandra L B Webb, Matthew M Carrick, Harold J Miller, Samir S Awad, Cynthia T Crosby, Michael C Mosier, Atef AlsharifAbstract:BACKGROUND Since the patient’s skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. We hypothesized that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine–alcohol is more protective against infection than is Povidone–Iodine. METHODS We randomly assigned adults undergoing clean-contaminated surgery in six hospitals to preoperative skin preparation with either chlorhexidine–alcohol scrub or Povidone–Iodine scrub and paint. The primary outcome was any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical-site infections. RESULTS A total of 849 subjects (409 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 440 in the Povidone–Iodine group) qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the Povidone–Iodine group (9.5% vs. 16.1%; P = 0.004; relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was significantly more protective than Povidone–Iodine against both superficial incisional infections (4.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.008) and deep incisional infections (1% vs. 3%, P = 0.05) but not against organ-space infections (4.4% vs. 4.5%). Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained in the study during the 30-day follow-up period. Adverse events were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS Preoperative cleansing of the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine–alcohol is superior to cleansing with Povidone–Iodine for preventing surgical-site infection after cleancontaminated surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00290290.)