Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Cirujano General
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2000, Issue 4


Ramírez SME, Cárdenas LLE, Torres GB, Domínguez JGL, Athié AAJ, Mijares GJM
Comparative study of the efficiency of acetic acid vs modified Dakin’s solution in the treatment of infections at the insitional site.
Cir Gen 2000; 22 (4)

Language: Español
References: 11
Page: 325-328
PDF: 4. Kb.


Full text




ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the usefulness of acetic acid as cinoared to the modified Dakin’s solution in the treatment of infections at the insitional site.
Design: Controlled clinical assay.
Setting: Third level health care general hospital.
Patients and methods: Sixty patients with infected insitional site in the abdominal wall were included and assigned randomly to two groups. A) Patients treated with acetic acid solution and B) patients treated with the modified Dakin’s solution. We analysed the following data: Diagnosis, age, gender, required treatment time, time for negativization of the culture, results from the culture, colony forming unites per gram of tissue (CFU/g), and side effects.
Results: Both groups were similar in regard to age, gender distribution, diagnosis, and isolated germs. Bacteria obtained most frequently were Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A significant different was found regarding healing time in favour of acetic acid (11.4 ± 3.04 days vs 13.6 ± 3.2 days for groups A and B, respectively, p = 0.002). The Pseudomonas infected lesions required less time to become negative in their cultures when treated with acetic acid (9 ± 1.7 vs 13.6 ± 2.1 days for Dakin’s solution; p = 0.0000). No side effects were observed in either group.
Conclusion: The use of acetic acid for the treatment of infections at the insitional site is efficient and safe. Acetic acid could the choice antiseptic for infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.


Key words: Infection controlsurgical wound infection, antiseptics.


REFERENCIAS

  1. Horan TC, White JW, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Culver DH, Munn VP, et al. Nosocomial infection surveillance, 1984. MMWR CDC Surveillance Summ 1986; 35: 17SS-29SS.

  2. Haley RW, Hooton TM, Culver DH, Stanley RC, Emori TG, Hardison CD, et al. Nosocomial infections in US hospitals, 1975-1976. Estimated frequency by selected characteristics of patients. Am J Med 1981; 70: 947-59.

  3. Pinner RW, Halley RW, Blumenstain BA, Schamberg DR, Von Allmen SD, McGowan SE Jr. High cost nosocomial infections. Infect Control 1982; 3: 143-9.

  4. Daschner F. Cost-effectiveness in hospital infection control-lessons for the 1990. J Hosp Infect 1989; 13: 325-36.

  5. Milner SM. Acetic acid to treat Pseudomonas aeruginosa in superficial wounds and burns [letter] Lancet 1992; 340: 61.

  6. Sloss JM, Cumberland N, Milner SM. Acetic acid used for the elimination of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from burn and soft tissue wounds. J R Army Med Corps 1993; 2: 49-51.

  7. Murray RK, Mayes PA, Granner DK, Rodwell VW. Bioquímica de Harper 11ª Ed. 1988 Editorial El Manual Moderno. México D.F.

  8. Goodman GA, Rall TW, Nies AS, Taylor P. Las Bases Farmacológicas de la Terapéutica, 8ª Ed. 1990 Editorial Panamericana. México D.F.

  9. Garder, W. Chemical desinfectants: Introduction to sterilation and disinfection. Longman House, Harllow, England. 1986: 131-149.

  10. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992; 13: 606-8.

  11. Nagoba BS, Deshmukh SR, Wadher BJ, Patil SB. Acetic acid treatment of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect 1997; 36: 243-4.






>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2000, Issue 4
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 






       
Copyright 2019