ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022
Marking Pen Bacterial Contamination During Shoulder Surgery.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEquipment used to guide surgical incisions has been shown to be a source of bacterial contamination during surgery. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To compare the culture-positive rates of sterile marking pens used before and after skin preparation for shoulder surgery. It was hypothesized that there will be no difference in culture-positive rates from marking pens used after skin preparation compared with before skin preparation. STUDY
designControlled laboratory study.
methodsOverall, 43 consecutive patients undergoing elective shoulder surgery were enrolled prospectively into this study. Each patient provided 2 samples: study pens (from marking the surgical site incision after skin preparation) and positive control pens (from marking the surgical site incision before skin preparation). In addition, there were 43 negative control pens evaluated (straight from the packaging without any patient contact). Cultures were evaluated at 4 and 21 days, and all positive cultures were further evaluated for speciation, if able. Standard descriptive summaries and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the study samples.
resultsThe average age of the 43 patients was 54 years (range, 18-76 years). There were 29 (67%) female patients, and 30 (70%) procedures were on the right shoulder. Of the 43 procedures performed, 29 (67.4%) were arthroscopic, 12 (27.9%) were open, and 2 (4.7%) were closed. Of the 43 study pens, 1 culture was positive for
conclusionStudy results indicated that sterile surgical marking pens used to plan incisions and to outline anatomic landmarks did not have a higher culture-positive rate compared with pens used on unprepared skin or pens straight from the packaging. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As a precaution, sterile surgical marking pens should be discarded after use on the skin surface and not placed on the sterile field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.