Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study

Background/aim: Povidone-iodine (PI, Betadine) is routinely used as a preoperative topical antiseptic in cataract surgery as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. However, the concentration used clinically is variable. In vitro studies have shown that PI is para...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of ophthalmology 2003-02, Vol.87 (2), p.163-167
Hauptverfasser: Ferguson, A W, Scott, J A, McGavigan, J, Elton, R A, McLean, J, Schmidt, U, Kelkar, R, Dhillon, B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 167
container_issue 2
container_start_page 163
container_title British journal of ophthalmology
container_volume 87
creator Ferguson, A W
Scott, J A
McGavigan, J
Elton, R A
McLean, J
Schmidt, U
Kelkar, R
Dhillon, B
description Background/aim: Povidone-iodine (PI, Betadine) is routinely used as a preoperative topical antiseptic in cataract surgery as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. However, the concentration used clinically is variable. In vitro studies have shown that PI is paradoxically more effective at lower concentration. This study was undertaken to determine if this effect was reproducible in vivo. Methods: A prospective randomised double blind study was carried out in the ophthalmic theatre in a district general hospital. 105 patients attending for routine cataract surgery were randomly allocated to have their conjunctival fornices irrigated preoperatively with either PI 1% (group A) or PI 5% (group B). Conjunctival swabs were taken, in identical fashion, both before and 1 minute after irrigation. The number and species of bacterial colonies cultured from each swab was counted. The difference in the median number of bacterial colonies from pre-irrigation to post-irrigation cultures was then compared between the groups. Results: Bacterial cultures were gained from 100 patients (33 male, 67 female, mean age 74 years, range 30–95 years). Group B (5% PI) showed a decrease in median colony forming units (CFU) pre-irrigation from 100 to 40 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 60%). This was greater than in group A (1% PI) where the reduction was 120 CFU pre-irrigation to 100 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 16.7%) (Mann-Whitney test, p1000), the difference in median between the two groups became larger as the number of pre-irrigation bacteria increased. In group B pre-irrigation CFU reduced from 3340 to 110 post-irrigation (a drop of 96.7%) compared with group A: 5000 CFU pre-irrigation to 3000 post-irrigation (a drop of 40%) (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0014). Conclusion: Despite in vitro evidence of higher bactericidal efficacy of PI at more dilute concentrations, 5% PI is more effective than 1% PI in decreasing the human conjunctival bacterial flora in vivo, particularly in the presence of heavier initial bacterial load.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bjo.87.2.163
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1771501</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A97836211</galeid><sourcerecordid>A97836211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4983-c920cca0b6a071413d1b92acf598d07fa921a963ec8728d1d8381bc8ad250da93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ksuO0zAUhiMEYsrAjjWyhAY2pNhxEtsskEblOqqGzYDYWSe2U1wSO9hJRV-I58Sl1RTQaOSFZZ9P_7n9WfaY4DkhtH7ZrP2cs3kxJzW9k81IWfO8wEzczWYYY5YTUpOT7EGM6_QsasLuZyekqErKynKW_Vr4foBgo3fIt6g6Q4PfWO2dya3X1hkUfTeNNoVhBdbFEZFbGOvQEIwfTIDRbgxSMEIANaI4hZUJWwRutNEM0cZXCBLr42DUHzSA075PQY20n5rOoKazTqM4Tnr7MLvXQhfNo8N9mn1-9_Zq8SFffnr_cXG-zJtScJorUWClADc1YEZKQjVpRAGqrQTXmLUgCgKipkZxVnBNNKecNIqDLiqsQdDT7PVed5ia3mhl3Bigk0OwPYSt9GDlvxFnv8mV30jCGKkwSQLPDgLB_5hMHGVqSZmuA2f8FCUrRM0p5Ql8-h-49lNwqbmdlsBYcLGjXuypFXRGWtf6lFWtjEsD7tICWpu-zwXjtC7ILnt-A56ONr1VN_EHeZUWEYNprzslWO7cJZO7JGeykMldCX_y93SO8MFOCTg7ABAVdG3aqbLxyJVVsiCtj3XaOJqf13EI32XNKKvk5ZeF_FpfXbDl5Rt5kfjne77p17eX-Bva6Pe7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779009898</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Ferguson, A W ; Scott, J A ; McGavigan, J ; Elton, R A ; McLean, J ; Schmidt, U ; Kelkar, R ; Dhillon, B</creator><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, A W ; Scott, J A ; McGavigan, J ; Elton, R A ; McLean, J ; Schmidt, U ; Kelkar, R ; Dhillon, B</creatorcontrib><description>Background/aim: Povidone-iodine (PI, Betadine) is routinely used as a preoperative topical antiseptic in cataract surgery as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. However, the concentration used clinically is variable. In vitro studies have shown that PI is paradoxically more effective at lower concentration. This study was undertaken to determine if this effect was reproducible in vivo. Methods: A prospective randomised double blind study was carried out in the ophthalmic theatre in a district general hospital. 105 patients attending for routine cataract surgery were randomly allocated to have their conjunctival fornices irrigated preoperatively with either PI 1% (group A) or PI 5% (group B). Conjunctival swabs were taken, in identical fashion, both before and 1 minute after irrigation. The number and species of bacterial colonies cultured from each swab was counted. The difference in the median number of bacterial colonies from pre-irrigation to post-irrigation cultures was then compared between the groups. Results: Bacterial cultures were gained from 100 patients (33 male, 67 female, mean age 74 years, range 30–95 years). Group B (5% PI) showed a decrease in median colony forming units (CFU) pre-irrigation from 100 to 40 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 60%). This was greater than in group A (1% PI) where the reduction was 120 CFU pre-irrigation to 100 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 16.7%) (Mann-Whitney test, p&lt;0.05). At higher initial bacterial loads (CFU pre-irrigation &gt;1000), the difference in median between the two groups became larger as the number of pre-irrigation bacteria increased. In group B pre-irrigation CFU reduced from 3340 to 110 post-irrigation (a drop of 96.7%) compared with group A: 5000 CFU pre-irrigation to 3000 post-irrigation (a drop of 40%) (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0014). Conclusion: Despite in vitro evidence of higher bactericidal efficacy of PI at more dilute concentrations, 5% PI is more effective than 1% PI in decreasing the human conjunctival bacterial flora in vivo, particularly in the presence of heavier initial bacterial load.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2079</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.2.163</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12543744</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJOPAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anesthesia ; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration &amp; dosage ; antiseptic ; Bacteria ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cataract ; Cataract - microbiology ; Cataract Extraction ; Cataracts ; Clinical Science ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Double-Blind Method ; endophthalmitis ; Eye surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Iodine ; Iodophors - administration &amp; dosage ; Laboratories ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Ophthalmology ; phacoemulsification ; Povidone ; povidone-iodine ; Povidone-Iodine - administration &amp; dosage ; Preoperative Care - methods ; Prospective Studies ; R&amp;D ; Research &amp; development ; Solutions ; Studies ; Surgery ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the eye and orbit</subject><ispartof>British journal of ophthalmology, 2003-02, Vol.87 (2), p.163-167</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2003 British Journal of Ophthalmology</rights><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2003 Copyright 2003 British Journal of Ophthalmology</rights><rights>Copyright © Copyright 2003 British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4983-c920cca0b6a071413d1b92acf598d07fa921a963ec8728d1d8381bc8ad250da93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1771501/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1771501/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=14500236$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12543744$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, A W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGavigan, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elton, R A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLean, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelkar, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhillon, B</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study</title><title>British journal of ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Br J Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Background/aim: Povidone-iodine (PI, Betadine) is routinely used as a preoperative topical antiseptic in cataract surgery as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. However, the concentration used clinically is variable. In vitro studies have shown that PI is paradoxically more effective at lower concentration. This study was undertaken to determine if this effect was reproducible in vivo. Methods: A prospective randomised double blind study was carried out in the ophthalmic theatre in a district general hospital. 105 patients attending for routine cataract surgery were randomly allocated to have their conjunctival fornices irrigated preoperatively with either PI 1% (group A) or PI 5% (group B). Conjunctival swabs were taken, in identical fashion, both before and 1 minute after irrigation. The number and species of bacterial colonies cultured from each swab was counted. The difference in the median number of bacterial colonies from pre-irrigation to post-irrigation cultures was then compared between the groups. Results: Bacterial cultures were gained from 100 patients (33 male, 67 female, mean age 74 years, range 30–95 years). Group B (5% PI) showed a decrease in median colony forming units (CFU) pre-irrigation from 100 to 40 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 60%). This was greater than in group A (1% PI) where the reduction was 120 CFU pre-irrigation to 100 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 16.7%) (Mann-Whitney test, p&lt;0.05). At higher initial bacterial loads (CFU pre-irrigation &gt;1000), the difference in median between the two groups became larger as the number of pre-irrigation bacteria increased. In group B pre-irrigation CFU reduced from 3340 to 110 post-irrigation (a drop of 96.7%) compared with group A: 5000 CFU pre-irrigation to 3000 post-irrigation (a drop of 40%) (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0014). Conclusion: Despite in vitro evidence of higher bactericidal efficacy of PI at more dilute concentrations, 5% PI is more effective than 1% PI in decreasing the human conjunctival bacterial flora in vivo, particularly in the presence of heavier initial bacterial load.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>antiseptic</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cataract</subject><subject>Cataract - microbiology</subject><subject>Cataract Extraction</subject><subject>Cataracts</subject><subject>Clinical Science</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>endophthalmitis</subject><subject>Eye surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iodine</subject><subject>Iodophors - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>phacoemulsification</subject><subject>Povidone</subject><subject>povidone-iodine</subject><subject>Povidone-Iodine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>R&amp;D</subject><subject>Research &amp; development</subject><subject>Solutions</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the eye and orbit</subject><issn>0007-1161</issn><issn>1468-2079</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ksuO0zAUhiMEYsrAjjWyhAY2pNhxEtsskEblOqqGzYDYWSe2U1wSO9hJRV-I58Sl1RTQaOSFZZ9P_7n9WfaY4DkhtH7ZrP2cs3kxJzW9k81IWfO8wEzczWYYY5YTUpOT7EGM6_QsasLuZyekqErKynKW_Vr4foBgo3fIt6g6Q4PfWO2dya3X1hkUfTeNNoVhBdbFEZFbGOvQEIwfTIDRbgxSMEIANaI4hZUJWwRutNEM0cZXCBLr42DUHzSA075PQY20n5rOoKazTqM4Tnr7MLvXQhfNo8N9mn1-9_Zq8SFffnr_cXG-zJtScJorUWClADc1YEZKQjVpRAGqrQTXmLUgCgKipkZxVnBNNKecNIqDLiqsQdDT7PVed5ia3mhl3Bigk0OwPYSt9GDlvxFnv8mV30jCGKkwSQLPDgLB_5hMHGVqSZmuA2f8FCUrRM0p5Ql8-h-49lNwqbmdlsBYcLGjXuypFXRGWtf6lFWtjEsD7tICWpu-zwXjtC7ILnt-A56ONr1VN_EHeZUWEYNprzslWO7cJZO7JGeykMldCX_y93SO8MFOCTg7ABAVdG3aqbLxyJVVsiCtj3XaOJqf13EI32XNKKvk5ZeF_FpfXbDl5Rt5kfjne77p17eX-Bva6Pe7</recordid><startdate>20030201</startdate><enddate>20030201</enddate><creator>Ferguson, A W</creator><creator>Scott, J A</creator><creator>McGavigan, J</creator><creator>Elton, R A</creator><creator>McLean, J</creator><creator>Schmidt, U</creator><creator>Kelkar, R</creator><creator>Dhillon, B</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>Copyright 2003 British Journal of Ophthalmology</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030201</creationdate><title>Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study</title><author>Ferguson, A W ; Scott, J A ; McGavigan, J ; Elton, R A ; McLean, J ; Schmidt, U ; Kelkar, R ; Dhillon, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4983-c920cca0b6a071413d1b92acf598d07fa921a963ec8728d1d8381bc8ad250da93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>antiseptic</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cataract</topic><topic>Cataract - microbiology</topic><topic>Cataract Extraction</topic><topic>Cataracts</topic><topic>Clinical Science</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>endophthalmitis</topic><topic>Eye surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iodine</topic><topic>Iodophors - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>phacoemulsification</topic><topic>Povidone</topic><topic>povidone-iodine</topic><topic>Povidone-Iodine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>R&amp;D</topic><topic>Research &amp; development</topic><topic>Solutions</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the eye and orbit</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, A W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGavigan, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elton, R A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLean, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelkar, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhillon, B</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ferguson, A W</au><au>Scott, J A</au><au>McGavigan, J</au><au>Elton, R A</au><au>McLean, J</au><au>Schmidt, U</au><au>Kelkar, R</au><au>Dhillon, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study</atitle><jtitle>British journal of ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2003-02-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>163</spage><epage>167</epage><pages>163-167</pages><issn>0007-1161</issn><eissn>1468-2079</eissn><coden>BJOPAL</coden><abstract>Background/aim: Povidone-iodine (PI, Betadine) is routinely used as a preoperative topical antiseptic in cataract surgery as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. However, the concentration used clinically is variable. In vitro studies have shown that PI is paradoxically more effective at lower concentration. This study was undertaken to determine if this effect was reproducible in vivo. Methods: A prospective randomised double blind study was carried out in the ophthalmic theatre in a district general hospital. 105 patients attending for routine cataract surgery were randomly allocated to have their conjunctival fornices irrigated preoperatively with either PI 1% (group A) or PI 5% (group B). Conjunctival swabs were taken, in identical fashion, both before and 1 minute after irrigation. The number and species of bacterial colonies cultured from each swab was counted. The difference in the median number of bacterial colonies from pre-irrigation to post-irrigation cultures was then compared between the groups. Results: Bacterial cultures were gained from 100 patients (33 male, 67 female, mean age 74 years, range 30–95 years). Group B (5% PI) showed a decrease in median colony forming units (CFU) pre-irrigation from 100 to 40 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 60%). This was greater than in group A (1% PI) where the reduction was 120 CFU pre-irrigation to 100 CFU post-irrigation (a drop of 16.7%) (Mann-Whitney test, p&lt;0.05). At higher initial bacterial loads (CFU pre-irrigation &gt;1000), the difference in median between the two groups became larger as the number of pre-irrigation bacteria increased. In group B pre-irrigation CFU reduced from 3340 to 110 post-irrigation (a drop of 96.7%) compared with group A: 5000 CFU pre-irrigation to 3000 post-irrigation (a drop of 40%) (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0014). Conclusion: Despite in vitro evidence of higher bactericidal efficacy of PI at more dilute concentrations, 5% PI is more effective than 1% PI in decreasing the human conjunctival bacterial flora in vivo, particularly in the presence of heavier initial bacterial load.</abstract><cop>BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>12543744</pmid><doi>10.1136/bjo.87.2.163</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1161
ispartof British journal of ophthalmology, 2003-02, Vol.87 (2), p.163-167
issn 0007-1161
1468-2079
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1771501
source MEDLINE; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anesthesia
Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage
antiseptic
Bacteria
Biological and medical sciences
Cataract
Cataract - microbiology
Cataract Extraction
Cataracts
Clinical Science
Colony Count, Microbial
Double-Blind Method
endophthalmitis
Eye surgery
Female
Humans
Iodine
Iodophors - administration & dosage
Laboratories
Male
Medical sciences
Methods
Middle Aged
Ophthalmology
phacoemulsification
Povidone
povidone-iodine
Povidone-Iodine - administration & dosage
Preoperative Care - methods
Prospective Studies
R&D
Research & development
Solutions
Studies
Surgery
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the eye and orbit
title Comparison of 5% povidone-iodine solution against 1% povidone-iodine solution in preoperative cataract surgery antisepsis: a prospective randomised double blind study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T17%3A22%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%205%25%20povidone-iodine%20solution%20against%201%25%20povidone-iodine%20solution%20in%20preoperative%20cataract%20surgery%20antisepsis:%20a%20prospective%20randomised%20double%20blind%20study&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Ferguson,%20A%20W&rft.date=2003-02-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=167&rft.pages=163-167&rft.issn=0007-1161&rft.eissn=1468-2079&rft.coden=BJOPAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bjo.87.2.163&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA97836211%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779009898&rft_id=info:pmid/12543744&rft_galeid=A97836211&rfr_iscdi=true