Preoperative surgical site antisepsis and the risk of anaphylaxis

Download PDF Česká verzia

Authors: A. Bolgáčová ¹; I. Králiková ²; M. Čambal ¹; P. Labaš ¹
Authors place of work: Ist Department of Surgery, Medical Faculty of Commenius University, Slovak Republic ¹; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Bratislava, Medical Faculty of Commenius University, Slovak Republic ²
Published in the journal: Rozhl. Chir., 2025, roč. 104, č. 10, s. 441-445.
Category: Souhrnné sdělení
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccrvch2025441

Summary

Over the time, preoperative surgical site antisepsis has demonstrated significant strides in both the understanding and practical application of antiseptic procedures. Surgical site infections (SSI) are still one of the most significant complications in health care providing. The source of the infection can be either endogenous by patient’s own bacterial flora or exogenous. Interventions to reduce the risk of SSI are necessary. Preoperative antisepsis of the surgical site is a critical step in the prevention of SSI. Nowadays the most widely used antiseptics are chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine (PVI). This article describes current procedures, the effectiveness of various antiseptic agents and recommendations for clinical practice. The results indicate that the use of chlorhexidine with alcohol reduces the occurrence of SSI more than PVI, which supports recommendations for its wider use in surgical practice. Frequent use of the products of daily use can cause allergic sensitisation, which leads to subsequent exposure during surgery and thus can cause an anaphylactic reaction in some patients. NAP6 study (National Audit Project 6: Perioperative Anaphylaxis) indicates the incidence of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis to be of 0.78 per 100,000 exposures. When selecting the antiseptic solution for preparation of surgical field, it is also important to take into consideration possible risk of anaphylactic reaction, which can endanger the patient greatly.

Keywords:

anaphylactic reaction – povidone-iodine – surgical site infections – preoperative surgical site antisepsis – chlorhexidine

Zdroje

1. Stryja J. Infekce v místě chirurgického výkonu a lokální management rány −⁠ metaanalýza. Rozhl Chir 2021; 100(7): 313–324. doi: 10.33699/PIS.2021.100.7.313–324.

2. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s. Surgical site infection prevention and treatment of surgical site infection. London: RCOG Press 2008.

3. Korol E, Johnston K, Waser N et al. A systematic review of risk factors associated with surgical site infections among surgical patients. PLoS One 2013; 8(12): e83743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083743.

4. Lathan SR. Caroline Hampton Halsted: the first to use rubber gloves in the operating room. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2010; 23(4): 389–392. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2010.11928658.

5. Ad W, Aquil Z, Alam SS. Historical background of wound care. Hamdan Med J 2020; 13(4): 189–195. doi: 10.4103/HMJ.HMJ_37_20.

6. Webster J, Osborne S. Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015(2): CD004985. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004985.pub5.

7. Dumville JC, McFarlane E, Edwards P et al. Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015(4): CD003949. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub.4.

8. Rose MA, Garcez T, Savic S et al. Chlorhexidine allergy in the perioperative setting: a narrative review. Br J Anaesth 2019; 123(1): 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.033.

9. Buonomo A, Aruanno A, Perilli V et al. Perioperative anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine: crucial role of in-vitro testing. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol 2024; 42(1): 74–76. doi: 10.12932/AP-250620-0890.

10. Cheong JZ, Liu A, Rust CJ et al. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Chlorhexidine gluconate demonstrates short-term efficacy and long-term cytotoxicity. Wound Repair Regen 2022; 30(5): 573–584. doi: 10.1111/wrr.13044.

11. Johnson J, Suwantarat N, Colantuoni E et al. The impact of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on skin bacterial burden of neonates admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit? J Perinatol 2018; 39(1): 63–71. doi: 10.1038/s41372-018-0231-7.

12. Epstein NE. Preoperative measures to prevent/minimize risk of surgical site infection in spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int 2018; 9 : 251. doi: 10.4103/sni.sni_372_18.

13. Sandoval MF, Pelletier F, Aubin F et al. Chlorhexidine-Induced Contact Anaphylaxis. Cureus 2025; 17(7): e88598. doi: 10.7759/cureus.88598.

14. Krautheim AB, Jermann TH, Bircher AJ. Chlorhexidine anaphylaxis: case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50(3): 113–116. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00308.x.

15. Kow RY, Low CL, Ruben JK et al. Life--threatening chlorhexidine anaphylaxis: a case report. Malays Orthop J 2017; 11(2): 72–74. doi: 10.5704/MOJ.1707.008.

16. Jolivet S, Lucet JC. Surgical field and skin preparation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105(1S): S1–S6. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.033.

17. Veiga DF, Damasceno CA, Filho JV et al. Influence of povidone-iodine preoperative showers on skin colonization in elective plastic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121(1): 115–118. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000293861.02825.76.

18. Gyorimolnar I, Czuczor S, Batai R et al. The impact of preoperative total body showering with povidone-iodine on skin flora. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2005; 22(Suppl 35): 46.

19. Hachenberg J, Acis E, Auer-Schmidt MM et al. Preoperative Octenidine application in breast reconstruction surgery. In Vivo 2021; 35(1): 549–554. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12290.

20. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus Povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(1): 18–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.

21. Wade RG, Burr NE, McCauley G et al. The comparative efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine antiseptics for the prevention of infection in clean surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2021; 274(6): e481–e488. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004076.

22. Smit SR, Gani J, Carroll R et al. Antiseptic skin agents to prevent surgical site infection after incisional surgery: a randomized, three-armed combined non-inferiority and superiority clinical trial (NEWSkin Prep Study). Ann Surg 202; 275(5): 842–848. doi: 10.1097/SL.0000000000005244.

23. Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, de Jonge S et al. New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16(12): e276–e287. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30398-X.

24. Geneva: World Health Organization. Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. 2018 [online]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536404/.

25. Stryja J, Repko M, Hájek M et al. Doporučené postupy –⁠ Infekce v místě chirurgického výkonu –⁠ prevence a léčba. Projekt: Klinické doporučené postupy. Registrační číslo: CZ.03.2.63/0.0/0.0/15_039/0008221. 2022 [online]. Dostupné z: https://kdp.uzis.cz/res/guideline/32-ssi-infekce-v-miste-chirurgickeho-vykonu-final.pdf.

26. Di Leo E, Delle Donne P, Calogiuri GF et al. Focus on the agents most frequently responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis. Clin Mol Allergy 2018; 16 : 16. doi: 10.1186/s12948-018-0094-7.

27. Pitlick MM, Volcheck GW. Perioperative anaphylaxis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2022; 42(1): 145–159. doi: 10.1016/j.iac.2021.09.002. PMID: 34823744.

28. Chundamala J, Wright JG. The efficacy and risks of using povidone-iodine irrigation to prevent surgical site infection: an evidence-based review. Can J Surg 2007; 50(6): 473–481.

29. Teixeira de Abreu AP, Ribeiro de Oliveira LR, Teixeira de Abreu AF et al. Perioperative anaphylaxis to Chlorhexidine during surgery and septoplasty. Case Rep Otolaryngol 2017; 2017 : 9605804. doi: 10.1155/2017/9605804.