Avagard hand antisepsis vs. Traditional scrub in 3600 pediatric urologic procedures

OBJECTIVES Avagard is a waterless, scrubless, and brushless hand antiseptic approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a replacement for traditional presurgical brush hand scrubbing. We evaluated the use of Avagard compared with hand brush scrub preparation for inpatient and outpatient pediatric urological operations. METHODS We evaluated the first 1800 patients for whom we used Avagard as a preoperative hand antiseptic and compared them with the last 1800 consecutive patients for whom we performed traditional antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush scrubbing. All patients underwent a variety of inpatient and outpatient open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic pediatric urological procedures. Patients were monitored postoperatively for wound infection, and patients and surgeon were monitored for side effects. A cost analysis was performed. RESULTS The incidence of wound infection was 2/1800 (0.11%) in the Avagard group and 3/1800 (0.17%) in the hand-scrub group (P >.99 Fisher's exact test). All wound infections were successfully treated with a single course of oral antibiotics. No side effects for the patients or surgeon were noted, including skin irritations or allergic reactions in either group. The traditional hand scrub is nearly 2 times more expensive per application than Avagard. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of wound infections in pediatric urological procedures is low (0.09%). We observe that Avagard provides comparable hand antisepsis to the traditional surgical scrub in a variety of pediatric urological procedures. Avagard is superior to the surgical hand scrub in costeffectiveness and time efficiency. Urologists should consider using Avagard for hand antisepsis before surgery.