Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

J Korean Acad Nurs : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Korean Acad Nurs > Volume 38(1); 2008 > Article
Original Article
Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy
Jeong Sil Choi
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2008;38(1):39-44.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2008.38.1.39
Published online: February 28, 2008

Full-time Lecturer, Department of Nursing Science, Konyang University, Daejeon, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Choi, Jeong-Sil. Department of Nursing Science, College of Medical Science, Konyang University, 685 Gasuwon-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon 320-718, Korea. Tel: 82-42-600-6346, Fax: 82-42-600-6307, jschoi408@empal.com
• Received: May 29, 2007   • Accepted: October 24, 2007

Copyright © 2008 Korean Society of Nursing Science

  • 1,209 Views
  • 5 Download
  • 3 Crossref
  • 6 Scopus
prev next
  • Purpose
    The purpose of this study was to compare 1% chlorhexidine-gluconate/61% ethanol (CHG/Ethanol) emollient and 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub for antimicrobial,residual effect, and skin condition.
  • Methods
    CHG/Ethanol emollient hand hygiene was performed waterless, and brushless by operating doctors and nurses (N=20). PVI hand washing was performed with water and a brush (N=20) for 5 min. The subjects were asked to press their left hand in hand-shaped agar before a surgical scrub, immediately after a surgical scrub and after the operation. The amount of isolated microorganisms were calculated by counting the number of divided areas(1×1 cm, 160 cell) which were culture positive in the hand culture plate. The skin condition was evaluated.
  • Results
    The antimicrobial count of CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI immediately post surgical scrub was 0.0 vs. 4.1 (p>.05), and after the operation was 0.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The Residual effect of CHG/Ethanol emollient immediately post surgical scrub and after the operation were 0.0 vs. 0.1 (p>.05), and PVI were 4.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The skin condition and satisfaction of CHG/Ethanol emollient was higher than PVI (p<.05).
  • Conclusion
    The antimicrobial effect between CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI were the same. Considering skin condition, satisfaction and allergic reaction CHG/Ethanol emollient for surgical scrub is recommended in Korea.
  • 1. Bischoff WE, Reynolds TM, Sessler CN, Edmond MB, Wenzel RP. Handwashing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antisepsis. Arc Intern Med. 2000;160:1017–1021.
  • 2. Bulus N, Kaleli I. Comparison of antibacterial effects of different antiseptics after hand washing. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2004;38(1-2):137–143.PubMed
  • 3. CDC. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. MMWR. 2002;51(RR-16.Article
  • 4. Earl ML, Jackson MM, Rickman LS. Improved rates of compliance with hand antisepsis guidelines: a three-phase observational study. Am J Nurs. 2001;101:26–33.
  • 5. Grove GL, Zerweck CR, Heilman JM, Pyrek JD. Methods for evaluating changes in skin condition due to the effect of antimicrobial hand cleansers: two studies comparing a new waterless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol-emollient antiseptic preparation with a conventional water-applied product. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:361–369.PubMed
  • 6. Jeong JS. Effect of Handwashing Improving Programs on the Adherence of Hand Washing and Nosocomial Infections in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit. 2002;Seoul, Seoul National University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  • 7. Jeong JS, Kim DH, Kim MN, Choe MA. Bactericidal effect of waterless alcohol gel hand washing agent. J Korean Biol Nurs Sci. 2002;4:127–137.
  • 8. Kjolen H, Anderson BM. Handwashing and disinfection of heavily contaminated hands- effective or ineffective. J Hospi Infect. 1992;21:61–71.Article
  • 9. Larson EL. Skin hygiene and infection prevention: More of the same or different approaches? Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:1287–1294.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Larson EL. Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation. ARON J. 2001;73:412–432.ArticlePDF
  • 11. Mulberrry G, Snyder AT, Heilman J, Pyrek J, Stahl J. Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:377–382.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Park ES, Kim KS, Lee WJ, Jang SY, Choi JY, Kim JM. The Economical Impact of Surgical Site Infection. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2005;10(2):57–64.
  • 13. Park ES, Jang SY, Kim KA, Kim YS, Jung SK, Woo KJ, et al. Comparison of waterless, brushless chlorhexidine/ ethanol emollient with povidone-iodine surgical scrubs. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2006;11(1):50–57.
  • 14. Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:832–836.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Smith DR, Ohmura K, Yamagata Z. Prevalence and correlates of hand dermatitis among nurses in a Japanese teaching hospital. J Epidemiol. 2003;13:157–161.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Smith DR, Smyth W, Leggat PA, Wang RS. Prevalence of hand dermatitis among hospital nurses working in a tropical environment. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2005;22:28–32.PubMed
  • 17. Visscher M, Canning J, Said D, Wickett R, Bondurant P. Effect of hand hygiene regimens on skin condition in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:111–123.
  • 18. 3M Avagard. Chlorhexidine Gluconate 1% solution and Ethyl alcohol 61% guideline. 2002;Unpublished manuscript.
Figure 1
Process of hand culture.
jkan-38-39-g001.jpg
Table 1
Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Antibacterial Efficiency (CFU/160 cm²)
jkan-38-39-i001.jpg
Table 2
Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Residual Effect (CFU/160 cm²)
jkan-38-39-i002.jpg

*paired t-test.

Table 3
Comparison of Satisfaction, Skin Condition and Allergy between Experimental and Control Group
jkan-38-39-i003.jpg

*p<.01; p<.001.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Hospital Environments Harbor Chlorhexidine-Tolerant Bacteria Potentially Linked to Chlorhexidine Persistence in the Environment
      Jiaxian Shen, Yuhan Weng, Tyler Shimada, Meghana Karan, Andrew Watson, Rachel L. Medernach, Vincent B. Young, Mary K. Hayden, Erica M. Hartmann
      Environmental Science & Technology.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Two-Layer Wound Sealing before Surgical Hand Washing for Surgeons with a Minor Cut Injury on the Hand
      Chan Yoon, Hyun Sik Gong, Jung Soo Park, Hyun Sik Seok, Jin Woo Park, Goo Hyun Baek
      Surgical Infections.2019; 20(5): 390.     CrossRef
    • The Efficacy of Chlorhexidine in Hemodialysis Vascular Access Device Disinfection
      Ji-Hyun Yang, Young-Mi Yu, Min-Gyeong Yu, Sung-Mi Moon, Sue-Jean Park
      Quality Improvement in Health Care.2017; 23(1): 55.     CrossRef

    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2008;38(1):39-44.   Published online February 28, 2008
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    We recommend
    Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy
    Image
    Figure 1 Process of hand culture.
    Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy

    Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Antibacterial Efficiency (CFU/160 cm²)

    Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Residual Effect (CFU/160 cm²)

    *paired t-test.

    Comparison of Satisfaction, Skin Condition and Allergy between Experimental and Control Group

    *p<.01; p<.001.

    Table 1 Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Antibacterial Efficiency (CFU/160 cm²)

    Table 2 Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Residual Effect (CFU/160 cm²)

    *paired t-test.

    Table 3 Comparison of Satisfaction, Skin Condition and Allergy between Experimental and Control Group

    *p<.01; p<.001.


    J Korean Acad Nurs : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
    Close layer
    TOP