Bacterial regrowth following various surgical scrubbing methods in prolonged surgeries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20260151Keywords:
Bacterial regrowth, Surgical scrubbing, Prolonged surgeries, Hand antisepsis, Infection controlAbstract
Bacterial regrowth beneath surgical gloves during prolonged operations remains a critical challenge in infection prevention. While surgical scrubbing methods effectively reduce microbial load at the start of procedures, the persistence and reappearance of skin flora over time can compromise the sterile field, especially during glove changes or unnoticed micro-perforations. The type of antiseptic agent, its residual activity, and the duration of the procedure influence how rapidly bacteria recolonize the hands. Alcohol-based hand rubs offer rapid initial reduction but may lack prolonged antimicrobial activity, while chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine formulations exhibit longer-lasting effects due to their ability to bind to the skin. Environmental conditions under gloves such as moisture, heat, and friction further contribute to microbial resurgence. The skin's natural characteristics, including the presence of deep-seated resident flora and the integrity of the skin barrier, also shape the rate of regrowth. Studies indicate that even with strict adherence to antisepsis protocols, bacterial levels under gloves can approach pre-scrub levels after several hours of wear. This risk is heightened in long surgeries where intraoperative interventions are limited. Infection control strategies must evolve to include time-based glove changes, selection of antiseptics with sustained activity, and intraoperative hygiene protocols when necessary. Institutional policies often overlook regrowth dynamics, focusing solely on preoperative practices. A more dynamic model that accounts for intraoperative changes and incorporates evidence-based antiseptic selection can reduce the risk of surgical site contamination. Understanding the multifactorial nature of bacterial regrowth and addressing it through procedural, environmental, and product-based adjustments is essential for maintaining surgical sterility in extended operations.
Metrics
References
Rotter ML, Sattar SA, Suchomel M. Methods to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of hand hygiene agents. Hand hygiene: A handbook for medical professionals. 2017:58-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846810.ch9
Widmer AF. Replace hand washing with use of a waterless alcohol hand rub. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(1):136-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/313888
Mayhall CG. Hospital epidemiology and infection control. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2012.
Ma Y, Yue X, Li N. Evaluation of an intervention to improve waterless surgical hand antisepsis accuracy in a tertiary hospital of East China: a prospective pre-post intervention study. Front Pub Health. 2025;13:1583510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1583510
Parienti JJ, Thibon P, Heller R. Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study. JAMA. 2002;288(6):722-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.6.722
Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17(4):863-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004
Block SS. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2001.
Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Cont Hospital Epidem. 2002;23(12):3-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/503164
Li L, Wang Y, Wang S. Efficacy comparison of chlorhexidine and iodine preparation in reduction of surgical site infection: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nursing Studies. 2022;127:104059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104059
Dharan S, Hugonnet S, Sax H, Pittet D. Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern. Infect Cont Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(3):160-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/502182
Price PB. The bacteriology of normal skin; a new quantitative test applied to a study of the bacterial flora and the disinfectant action of mechanical cleansing. J Infect Dis. 2017;19:301-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/63.3.301
Aly R, Malbach HI. Comparative antibacterial efficacy of a 2-minute surgical scrub with chlorhexidine gluconate, povidone-iodine, and chloroxylenol sponge-brushes. American J Infect Cont. 1988;16(4):173-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(88)90029-6
Suchomel M, Fritsch F, Kampf G. Bactericidal efficacy of two modified WHO-recommended alcohol-based hand rubs using two types of rub-in techniques for 15s. J Hospital Infection. 2021;111:47-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.03.011
McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microb Rev. 1999;12(1):147-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.12.1.147
Wistrand C, Söderquist B, Falk-Brynhildsen K, Nilsson U. Exploring bacterial growth and recolonization after preoperative hand disinfection and surgery between operating room nurses and non-health care workers: a pilot study. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3375-3
Widmer A, Rotter M, Voss A. Surgical hand preparation: state-of-the-art. J Hospital Infect. 2010;74(2):112-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.06.020
Al-Naami MY, Anjum MN, Afzal MF. Alcohol-based hand-rub versus traditional surgical scrub and the risk of surgical site infection: a randomized controlled equivalent trial. EWMA J. 2009;9(3):769.
Dharan S, Pittet D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hospital Infect. 2002;51(2):79-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1217