4.4 Article

FACE MASK CONTAMINATION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIA. A STUDY ON PATIENTS RECEIVING INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 41, Issue 11, Pages 2215-2220

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS

Keywords

asepsis protocol; Covid-19; endophthalmitis; face mask; intravitreal injection; povidone-iodine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that patients wearing surgical face masks for more than 4 hours had higher bacterial contamination in the periocular area, but the contamination was significantly reduced by using povidone-iodine. These findings suggest that the contamination of masks should be taken into consideration in the asepsis protocol for intravitreal injections.
Purpose: To investigate the bacterial growth in the surgical face masks used by patients who received intravitreal injections and study the effect of povidone-iodine on the periocular area (PA) of masks. Methods: Forty patients who attended for intravitreal injections were divided in those with less (<4 hours) and more (>4 hours) than 4 hours of mask use. Each group was divided depending on the application or not of povidone-iodine in the PA of the mask. Bacterial load was studied on PA and mouth area samples. Results: The bacterial load in the PA was higher in the >4 hours group compared with the <4 hours group (13.2 vs. 48.75 colony-forming units/mu L; P = 0.03). The contamination in the PA significantly decreased after applying povidone-iodine in the >4 hours group (P = 0.01). The use or not of povidone-iodine was strongly correlated to a positive culture (OR = 9.0, P = 0.00. CI 1.63-49.44). Conclusion: Surgical face masks worn for more than 4 hours present higher contamination in the PA than those with less use. Bacterial load in the PA is reduced with povidone-iodine on masks used for more than 4 hours. This contamination should be considered in the asepsis protocol of intravitreal injections.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available