Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:28:34.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monsel's Solution: A Potential Vector for Nosocomial Infection?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mark E. Rupp ,
Sharon J. Medcalf ,
Paul D. Fey ,
Luke D. Handke  and
Nedra D. Marion
Mark E. Rupp*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Sharon J. Medcalf
Affiliation:
Nebraska Health System, Omaha, Nebraska
Paul D. Fey
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Luke D. Handke
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Nedra D. Marion
Affiliation:
Nebraska Health System, Omaha, Nebraska
*
984031 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-4031
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Monsel's solution is a common topically applied hemostatic agent used in minor dermatologic and gynecologic surgery. Clinically, because it is often stored for long periods and dispensed from a common source for multiple patients, Monsel's solution is a potential vector for transmission of infection. However, microbiologic inoculation studies and contamination surveys indicate that Monsel's solution has properties that prohibit microbial growth, making it an unlikely vector for nosocomial infection.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , February 2003 , pp. 142 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Carson, LA, Anderson, RL, Panlilio, AL, Beck-Sague, CM, Miller, JM. Isoenzyme analysis of Pseudomonas cepacia as an epidemiologic tool. Am J Med 1991;91:252S–255S.Google Scholar
2.Archibald, LK, Cori, A, Shah, B, et alSerratia marcescens outbreak associated with extrinsic contamination of 1% chlorxylenol soap. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:704–709.Google Scholar
3.Grohskopf, LA, Roth, VR, Feikin, DR, et al. Serratia liquefaciens bloodstream infections from contamination of epoetin alfa at a hemodialysis center. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1491–1497.Google Scholar
4.Gravel, D, Sample, ML, Ramotar, K, Toye, B, Oxley, C, Garber, G. Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia in the adult intensive care unit traced to contaminated indigo carmine dye. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:103–106.Google Scholar
5.Matrician, L, Ange, G, Burns, S, et al. Outbreak of nosocomial Burkholderia cepacia infection and colonization associated with intrinsically contaminated mouthwash. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21: 739–741.Google Scholar
6.Weist, K, Wendt, C, Petersen, LR, Versmold, H, Ruden, H. An outbreak of pyodermas among neonates caused by ultrasound gel contaminated with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:761–764.Google Scholar
7.Mitchell, SJ, Gray, J, Morgan, ME, Hocking, MD, Durbin, GM. Nosocomial infection with Rhizopus microsporia in preterm infants associated with wooden tongue depressors. Lancet 1996;348:441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Davis, JR, Steinbronn, KK, Graham, AR, Dawson, BV. Effect of Monsel's solution in uterine cervix. Am J Clin Pathol 1984;82:332–335.Google Scholar
9.Sawchuk, WS, Friedman, KJ, Manning, T, Pinnell, SR. Delayed healing in full-thickness wounds treated with aluminum chloride solution. J Am Acad Dermatol 1986;15:982–989.Google Scholar
10.Armstrong, RB, Nichols, J, Pachance, J. Punch biopsy wounds treated with Monsel's solution or a collagen matrix. Arch Dermatol 1986; 122:546–549.Google Scholar
11.Olmstead, PM, Lund, HZ, Leonard, DD. Monsel's solution: a histologic nuisance. J Am Acad Dermatol 1980;3:492–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Horn, MS, Circeo, RB. Radiographic artifacts produced by silver nitrate and Monsel's solution. J Am Acad Dermatol 1983;8:560–562.Google Scholar