Sterile versus nonsterile clean dressings.

BACKGROUND Many patients cannot afford sterile dressings. In St John, New Brunswick, clean dressings have been used instead of sterile dressings for years, with no apparent ill effects. No previous studies have compared the sterility and cost of clean versus sterile dressing materials. OBJECTIVES THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT STUDY WERE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: how much more sterile are sterile dressings than clean dressings; and how much does this extra sterility cost? METHODS Sterility and cost of sterile gauze, panty liners, sanitary napkins, diapers and Coban tape (3M, USA) were compared. Samples, 2 cm x 2 cm in size, were cut out of each material under aseptic conditions, and delivered to the microbiology laboratory in sterile urine containers. The samples were then cultured and organisms were identified using conventional means. RESULTS The cost for one month, using one 20 cm x 5 cm wound dressing daily, was calculated and compared with panty liners ($2.43), sanitary napkins ($5.55), diapers ($9.39) and Coban tape ($0.66), which were much cheaper than sterile dressings ($16.50). How sterile were the dressings? None of the 20 sanitary napkins grew bacteria, one of the 20 panty liners grew bacteria (coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), two of 20 sterile dressings grew bacteria (one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and one nonhemolytic Streptococcus), 15 of 20 diapers grew bacteria (all bacillus) and two of five Coban rolls grew bacteria (one bacillus and one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus). CONCLUSION The panty liners, sanitary napkins and Coban tape studied were cheaper than, and had a comparible sterility with, the sterile gauze examined.