Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine for the prevention of ‎Surgical Site ‎Infections: A review.‎

BackgroundSurgical Site Infections (SSIs) are the third most frequently reported health care-associated ‎infection‎ and it remain a major clinical problem despite improvements in prevention, as they ‎are associated with ‎significant mortality and morbidity. Prevention strategies for SSIs are based ‎on reducing the risk of infection by bacteria, So many antiseptic agents are ‎used, the most ‎common one are Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine.‎AimsTo discuss the ‎findings of RCTs that compare Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine in the prevention of ‎Surgical ‎Site ‎Infections (SSIs).‎Methods This systematic review was carried out, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and EBSCO that ‎examining randomized trials of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine to summarize the major ‎RCT that compare Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine in the prevention of Surgical Site ‎Infections (SSIs).‎Results The review included six randomized studies that compare between Chlorhexidine and Povidone-‎Iodine for the prevention of SSIs. The findings showed that many studies prefer using ‎Chlorhexidine over Povidine-Iodine to reduce SSIs, few studies prefer using PVI as antiseptic ‎and other studies reported that there is no significant difference between both. ConclusionMajority of results prefer using Chlorhexidine than Povidone-Iodine‎ as antiseptics but ‎there were few findings prefer ‎PVI and other studies reported that there was no significant ‎difference between using them as ‎antiseptics.

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries