Letter to the Editor: Response to letter regarding: Prospective, randomised clinical trial of four different presurgical hand antiseptic techniques in equine surgery.

1. Kampf G, Verwilghen D. Letter to the editor: prospective, randomisation clinical trial of four different presurgical hand antiseptic techniques in equine surgery. Equine Vet. J. 51, 705.
2. Biermann NM, McClure JT, Sanchez J, Saab M, Doyle AJ. Prospective, randomised clinical trial of four different presurgical hand antiseptic techniques in equine surgery. Equine Vet J 51, 600-605.
3. . Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Application of European standards for chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. EN 14885:2015 (2015) CEN - Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels.
4. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Safety and effectiveness of healthcare antiseptics. topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-counter human use; proposed amendment of the tentative final monograph; reopening of administrative record; proposed rule. Fed. Reg. 80, 25166-25205.
5. Veiga DF. Authors reply to: effect of chlorhexidine probably overestimated because of lack of neutralization after sampling. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 30, 812-813.
6. Kampf G, Shaffer M, Hunte C. Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidin-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment. BMC Infect. Dis. 5, 48.
7. Zamany A, Spangberg LS. An effective method of inactivating chlorhexidine. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 93, 617-620.
8. Kampf G, Höfer M, Rüden H. Inaktivierung von Chlorhexidin bei der in vitro Desinfektionsmitteltestung. Zentralbl. Hyg. Umweltmed. 200, 457-464.
9. Kampf G. What is left to justify the use of chlorhexidine in hand hygiene?. J. Hosp. Infect. 70(91), 27-34.
10. Kampf G, Reichel M, Hollingsworth A, Bashir M. Efficacy of surgical hand scrub products based on chlorhexidine is largely overestimated without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid. Am. J. Infect. Control. 41, e1-5.
11. Hajipur L. Authors reply to: appropriate surgical hand antisepsis. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 89, 191-192.
12. Olson LKM. Authors reply to: persistent activity - should the effect of chlorhexidine in the sampling fluid and nutrient broth and on agar plates really be regarded as the effect on hands?. Am. J. Infect. Control. 40, 579-580.
13. Elce YA, Laverty S, Almeida da Silveira E, Piat P, Trencart P, Ruzickova P, Reardon RJ. Frequency of undetected glove perforation and associated risk factors in equine surgery. Vet. Surg. 45, 1066-1070.
14. Biermann NM, McClure JT, Sanchez J, Doyle AJ. Observational study on the occurrence of surgical glove perforation and associated risk factors in large animal surgery. Vet. Surg. 47, 212-218.
15. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C. Influence of applied volume on efficacy of 3-minute surgical reference disinfection method prEN 12791. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 7066-7069.
16. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C. Small volumes of n-propanol (60%) applied for 3 minutes may be ineffective for surgical hand disinfection. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 3, 15.
17. Kampf G, Ruselack S, Eggerstedt S, Nowak N, Bashir M. Less and less-influence of volume on hand coverage and bactericidal efficacy in hand disinfection. BMC Infect. Dis. 13, 472.

Citations