Evaluation of lid speculum with a drape (LiDrape(®)) for preventing surgical-field contamination

• Published in: Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Vol. 9; no. default; pp. 1227 - 1232
• Main Authors: Urano, Toru, Kasaoka, Masataka, Sagawa, Kimitaka, Yamakawa, Ryoji
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Zealand Dove Medical Press Limited 01.01.2015; Dove Press; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: Bacteria; Cataract; cataract surgery; Contamination; Drape; Fluid dynamics; Fluid flow; Fluids; Infection control; Irrigation; LiDrape; Methods; Original Research; Propionibacterium acnes; Surgeries; Surgery; surgical field contamination; Surgical supplies; LiDrape; surgical field contamination; Propionibacterium acnes; cataract surgery
• ISSN: 1177-5467; 1177-5483; 1177-5483
• DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S81747

To compare the degree of surgical-field contamination in cataract surgeries between a new draping method using a lid speculum with a drape (LiDrape(®)) and a conventional draping method. Cataract surgery was performed on 21 eyes using LiDrape(®) (LiDrape(®) group) and on 22 eyes using a conventional draping method (conventional group). Contamination was evaluated by bacterial culture of conjunctival sac scrapings and ocular surface irrigation fluid. Conjunctival sac scrapings were collected before and after application of preoperative antibiotics. Ocular surface irrigation fluid was collected before incision placement and during surgery. Bacterial detection rate and types of organisms isolated at these four time points were examined. Bacterial detection rates were significantly decreased in the LiDrape(®) group at all time points after the application of antibiotics compared with preapplication. Regarding between-group comparisons, the bacterial detection rate in the LiDrape(®) group was only significantly lower than that in the conventional group in the intraoperative sample. Propionibacterium acnes was the most common organism isolated from ocular surface irrigation fluid. The number of P. acnes in the intraoperative sample was significantly lower in the LiDrape(®) group compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in detection rates for other bacteria between the groups. LiDrape(®) was as effective as conventional draping for preventing surgical-field contamination. The number of P. acnes during surgery was significantly lower in the LiDrape(®) group compared with the conventional group, suggesting that LiDrape(®) may contribute to the prevention of postoperative infection.