Brief rerportEfficacy evaluaton of a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as a full-body shower wash
References (9)
- et al.
Preoperative whole body disinfection-a controlled clinical study
J Hosp Infect
(1988) - et al.
A comparison of the effects of preoperative whole body bathing with detergent alone and with detergent containing chlorhexidine gluconate on the frequency of wound infections after clean surgery
J Hosp Infect
(1988) - et al.
A comparison of pre-operative bathing with chlorhexidine detergent and non-medicated soap in the prevention of wound infection
J Hosp Infect
(1983) A broad-based approach to evaluating topical antimicrobial products
Cited by (67)
Contemporary Review to Reduce Groin Surgical Site Infections in Vascular Surgery
2021, Annals of Vascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :In a study of more than 700 patients who received two preoperative antiseptic showers, chlorhexidine caused a nine-fold decrease in skin bacterial colony counts, while povidone-iodine and medicated soap reduced the colony counts by 1.3-fold and 1.9-fold, respectively.29 Similar studies conducted by Hayek et al., Paulson et al., and May et al. corroborate these findings.30–32 Moreover, Edmiston et al. demonstrated that using a standardized preadmission shower regimen that included at least two showers using 4% chlorhexidine, and a 1-minute pause before rinsing, achieved maximal skin surface concentration of chlorhexidine; these concentrations were adequate to inhibit or kill both gram-positive and gram-negative surgical wound pathogens present on the skin preoperatively.33
Prevention of Perioperative Surgical Site Infection
2021, Perioperative Medicine: Managing for Outcome, Second EditionA Randomized, Clinical Trial of Preadmission Chlorhexidine Skin Preparation for Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty
2016, Journal of ArthroplastyCitation Excerpt :This superiority is attributed to rapid bactericidal action and long-lasting residual effects on the skin [20]. It inactivates microorganisms on the skin surface and prevents microbial recolonization in the presence of body fluids [10,29]. In Springer and Parvizi's book, Potter et al [24] evaluated the use of chlorhexidine and intranasal mupirocin decolonization protocol for Staphylococcus aureus and reported up to an 81% reduction in surgical site infections in those using this protocol [30-34].
Prevention of Operative Infections: An Evidence-Based Approach
2016, Benzel's Spine Surgery: Techniques, Complication Avoidance and Management: Volume 1-2, Fourth EditionNasal carriers are more likely to acquire exogenous Staphylococcus aureus strains than non-carriers
2015, Clinical Microbiology and InfectionCitation Excerpt :Thus, eradication of S. aureus nasal carriage may prevent nosocomial infections, and such interventions have been proven to be clinically effective [8,14–17]. For instance, mupirocin treatment combined with chlorhexidine washings was effective in eliminating S. aureus from both the nares and skin [18,19], which reduced the number of nosocomial S. aureus endo-infections. Whether prior nasal colonization with a methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) strain protects against acquisition of exogeneous MSSA or methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is still largely unknown [20,21].