Surgical hand rubbing versus surgical hand scrubbing: Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy. Issue 6 (June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Feng, Weili; Lin, Shiyuan; Huang, Daoqiang; Huang, Jian; Chen, Luyao; Wu, Weiwei; Hu, Shiqiang; Wei, Zhantu; Wang, Xiaoping
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 51:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1250
• Page End: 1257
• Publication Date: 2020-06
• Subjects: Surgical hand rubbing -- Surgical hand scrubbing -- Efficacy -- Hand antisepsis; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Highlights: Seven clinical trials met our inclusion criteria. A total of 764 healthcare workers were involved. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups. Surgical hand scrubbing is recommended. Abstract: Background: Surgical hand rubbing (SHR) and surgical hand scrubbing (SHS) are two common methods used by surgeons to reduce surgical site infections. To date, the optimal method that can effectively reduce these infections remains unknown. In this study, we performed a comprehensive statistical analysis to compare the efficacy of these two methods in effectively controlling surgical site infections. Methods: A systemic review and meta-analysis was performed by mining literature from major databases, including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Ovid and Google Scholar, and recruiting studies published between 1980 and 1st April 2019. Analysis was performed using Revman, version 5.3, software, and focused on primary outcomes that included colony-forming unit (CFU) counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and after surgery. Results: Seven clinical trials met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 764 healthcare workers analyzed. We found no statistically significant differences between the two methods with regards to CFU counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and surgery, as well as antisepsis and surgery times. Conclusion: From the literature, it was evident that SHR had similar efficacy to SHS, without necessarily increasing costs. Owing to advantages such as ease of application, exposure to less dermal irritation, and less time consumption, SHR is recommended as a cost-effective alternative for management of surgical site infections.