Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33787613›Full record

ArticleMedicine2021

Does washing medical devices before and after use decrease bacterial contamination?: An in vitro study.

Gisele Alborghetti Nai, Denis Aloísio Lopes Medina, Cesar Alberto Talavera Martelli, Mayla Silva Cayres de Oliveira, Maria Júlia Schadeck Portelinha, Bruno Carvalho Henriques, Isadora Delfino Caldeira, Mércia de Carvalho Almeida, Lizziane Kretli Winkelstroter Eller, Fausto Viterbo de Oliveira Neto and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 51% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gisele Alborghetti NaiDepartment of Pathology.ORCID 0000-0003-1674-7371
Denis Aloísio Lopes MedinaGraduate Program in Animal Science.
Cesar Alberto Talavera MartelliGraduate Program in Health Sciences.
Mayla Silva Cayres de OliveiraLaboratory of Clinical Analysis.
Maria Júlia Schadeck PortelinhaSchool of Medicine.
Bruno Carvalho HenriquesSchool of Medicine.
Isadora Delfino CaldeiraSchool of Medicine.
Mércia de Carvalho AlmeidaSchool of Medicine.
Lizziane Kretli Winkelstroter EllerGraduate Program in Health Sciences.
Fausto Viterbo de Oliveira NetoDepartment of Plastic Surgery.
Mariângela Esther Alencar MarquesDepartment of Pathology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Indiana University School of MedicineUniversidade do Oeste Paulista · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractSurface treatment of medical devices may be a way of avoiding the need for replacement of these devices and the comorbidities associated with infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pre- and postcontamination washing of 2 prostheses with different textures can decrease bacterial contamination.The following microorganisms were evaluated: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis. Silicone and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene vascular prostheses were used and divided into 3 groups: prostheses contaminated; prostheses contaminated and treated before contamination; and prostheses contaminated and treated after contamination. Treatments were performed with antibiotic solution, chlorhexidine and lidocaine. After one week of incubation, the prostheses were sown in culture medium, which was incubated for 48 hours. The area of colony formation was evaluated by fractal dimension, an image analysis tool.The antibiotic solution inhibited the growth of S epidermidis and chlorhexidine decrease in 53% the colonization density for S aureus in for both prostheses in the pre-washing. In postcontamination washing, the antibiotic solution inhibited the growth of all bacteria evaluated; there was a 60% decrease in the colonization density of S aureus and absence of colonization for E faecalis with chlorhexidine; and lidocaine inhibited the growth of S aureus in both prostheses.Antibiotic solution showed the highest efficiency in inhibiting bacterial growth, especially for S epidermidis, in both washings. Lidocaine was able to reduce colonization by S aureus in post-contamination washing, showing that it can be used as an alternative adjuvant treatment in these cases.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBlood Vessel ProsthesisColony Count, MicrobialDecontaminationDisinfectantsEnterococcus faecalisHumansLidocainePolytetrafluoroethyleneProsthesis DesignProsthesis-Related InfectionsProteus mirabilisSiliconesStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus epidermidisAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisinfectantsLidocainePolytetrafluoroethyleneSilicones

Identifiers

PMID33787613
PMCPMC8021368
OpenAlexW3151972392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.