ABSTRACT
AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic the search for complementary methods to enhance manual disinfection in dental and medical practices raised relevance. We sought evidence for the addition of ultraviolet-C (UV-C) disinfection to manual cleaning protocols -and whether it improves the logarithmic (log) reduction of surface pathogen colonies. METHODS: This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD420200193961. Six electronic sources were consulted looking for clinical trials performed in healthcare environments in which pathogens were quantified by colony-forming unit (CFU)-enumeration before and after interventions, all databases were last consulted on May 2021. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of the evidence was qualified according to the Classification of Recommendations, Evaluation, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 1012 records and 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All included studies reported enhanced disinfection in the UV-C arm; most of them reported 1-log to 2-log reduction in approximately 10 to 25 min. Only three studies reached a 5-log and 6-log reduction. When manual cleaning was performed alone, only two studies reported a 1-log reduction using a chlorine-based disinfectant. We detected a high risk of bias in 1 study. Certainty of evidence was classified as moderate and low. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence points out the effectiveness of UV-C technology in reducing manual cleaning failures, enhancing the logarithmic reduction of surface pathogen colonies. However, the safety and success of these devices will depend on several physical and biological factors. A judicious project must precede their use in clinical and medical offices under the supervision of a physicist or other trained professional.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To examine prospectively the incidence of digital infarction and phentolamine rescue in a large series of patients in whom local anesthesia with adrenaline was injected electively into the hand and fingers. There continues to be a commonly held belief that epinephrine injection is contraindicated in the finger despite a lack of valid evidence to support this concept in the literature. METHODS: From 2002 to 2004 there were 9 hand surgeons in 6 cities who prospectively recorded each consecutive case of elective hand and finger epinephrine injection. They recorded each instance of skin or tissue loss and the number of times phentolamine reversal of adrenaline vasoconstriction was required. RESULTS: There were 3,110 consecutive cases of elective injection of low-dose epinephrine (1:100,000 or less) in the hand and fingers and none produced any instance of digital tissue loss. Phentolamine was not required to reverse the vasoconstriction in any patients. CONCLUSIONS: The true incidence of finger infarction in elective low-dose epinephrine injection into the hand and finger is likely to be remote, particularly with the possible rescue with phentolamine.
