The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:2193-2195.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00293
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Sterility of Surgical Site Marking
Geoffrey Cronen, MD1,
Vytautas Ringus, MD1,
Gavin Sigle, MS IV1 and
Jaiyoung Ryu, MD1
1 Department of Orthopaedics, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 9196, Health
Sciences Center, Morgantown, WV 26506-9196. E-mail address for G. Cronen:
wvubonehead{at}yahoo.com
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedics, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or
other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a
commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or
direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated.
A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article,
on our web site
(www.jbjs.org)
and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at
781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).
Background: Over the past decade, wrong-site surgery has been a
popular topic of discussion, not only in medical and legal journals but also
in the mainstream press. Marking of the surgical site according to the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) Universal
Protocol was implemented at our institution to help reduce the number of
wrong-site operations. In this study, we determined whether marking of the
site affected the sterility of the surgical field.
Methods: The study included twenty volunteers. The right forearm was
used as the experimental (marked) arm and the left forearm, as the control
arm. The experimental forearms were marked with a surgical marker as described
by the protocol. Both upper extremities were then sterilized from the
antecubital fossa to the phalanges with a 7.5% povidone-iodine scrub followed
by the application of a 10% povidone-iodine paint. Swabs were used to obtain
samples from the experimental and control arms as well as from the marker and
were sent for microbiological culture and analysis.
Results: No growth was seen in the cultures of the swabs used on the
experimental or control arms or on the marking pens.
Conclusions: Preoperative marking of surgical sites in accordance
with the JCAHO Universal Protocol did not affect the sterility of the surgical
field, a finding that provides support for the safety of surgical site
marking.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. W. Simon, Y. Ngo, S. Khan, and D. Strogatz
Surgical Confusions in Ophthalmology
Arch Ophthalmol,
November 1, 2007;
125(11):
1515 - 1522.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Letters to the Editor:
Read all Letters to the Editor
- IS SURGICAL SITE MARKING REALLY SAFE?
- Subramanyam n Maripuri
- JBJS Online, 17 Jan 2006
[Full text]
- Dr. Cronen responds to Dr. Maripuri
- Geoffrey A. Cronen, M.D.
- JBJS Online, 11 Apr 2006
[Full text]
|