Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cleaning Solutions and Bacterial Colonization in Promoting Healing and Early Separation of the Umbilical Cord in Healthy Newborns

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The efficacy of alcohol or water in promoting umbilical cord separation was compared in a randomized controlled trial. Rates of skin colonization between groups were also evaluated on three occasions. Time to cord separation, rates of colonization, and species of organisms that colonized were compared between groups. Of 148 participants, 136 (92%) completed the protocol. Cords that were cleaned with sterile water separated more quickly than those cleaned with alcohol (t = 3.15, p = 0.002). Betweengroup differences in colonization rates were not found (F = 1.59, df = 2, p = 0.205). Umbilical or other infections did not occur. Bacterial colonization of the umbilical area and surrounding skin occurs over time in healthy term neonates. Cleaning with alcohol will increase the length of time from birth to cord separation but will not prevent colonization of the umbilical area.

Résumé

Dans une étude sur échantillon aléatoire et contrôlé, on a comparé l’efficacité de l’alcool à celle de l’eau pour favoriser la séparation du cordon ombilical. Les taux de colonisation bactérienne cutanée entre les groupes ont également été comparés à trois reprises. Le temps de séparation du cordon, les taux de colonisation et les types d’organismes colonisateurs ont aussi été comparés entre les groupes. Sur les 148 participants, 136 (92 %) ont complété le protocole de recherche. Les cordons ombilicaux nettoyés avec de l’eau stérile se sont séparés plus rapidement que ceux nettoyés avec de l’alcool (t = 3,15, p = 0,002). On n’a pas relevé de différences dans les taux de colonisation des différents groupes (F = 1,59, D = 2, p = 0,205). Il n’y a pas eu d’infections ombilicales ou autres. La colonisation bactérienne de la région ombilicale et de la peau adjacente apparaît avec le temps chez les nouveau-nés, nés à terme et en bonne santé. Le nettoyage avec de l’alcool augmente le temps de séparation du cordon et ne prévient pas la colonisation bactérienne de la région ombilicale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arad I, Eyal F, Fainmesser P. Umbilical care and cord separation. Arch Dis Child 1981;56:887–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tötterman LE, Autio S. Treatment of the umbilical cord of the newborn. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1970;49:57–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett FF, Mason EO, Fleming D. The effect of three cord-care regimens on bacterial colonization of normal newborn infants. J Pediatr 1979;94(5):796–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrich MP, Golden, SM. Umbilical cord care. A study of bacitracin ointment, vs. triple dye. Clin Pediatr 1984;23(6):342–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schuman AJ, Oksol, BA. The effect of isopropyl alcohol and triple dye on umbilical cord separation time. Military Medicine 1985;150:49–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gladstone IG, Clapper L, Thorp JW, Wright, DI. Randomized study of six umbilical cord care regimens. Clin Pediatr 1988;27(3):127–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Salariya EM, Kowbus, NM. Variable umbilical cord care. Midwifery 1988;4(2):70–76.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mansell H. Cord care appraised. The Australian Nurses Journal 1990;20(2):22–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Meberg A, Schøyen R. Hydrophobic material in routine umbilical cord care and prevention of infections in newborn infants. Scand J Infect Dis 1990;22:729–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Verber IG, Pagan, FS. What cord care — if any? Arch Dis Child 1993;68:594–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhalla JN, Nafis N, Rohatgi P, Singh J. Some observations on the separation of the umbilical stump in the newborn. Indian J Pediatr 1975;42(334):329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lawrence, CR. Effect of two different methods of umbilical cord care on its separation time. Midwives Chronicle and Nursing Notes 1982;95(1033):204–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Naor N, Merlob P, Litwin A, Wielunsky E. Time of separation of the umbilical cord: A comparative study of treatment with alcohol and rikospray. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989;32:89–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barclay L, Harrington A, Conroy R, et al. A comparative study of neonates’ umbilical cord management. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 1994;11(3):34–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bourke E. Cord care: Too much or too little. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 1990;7(2);19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Martin G, Streng J, Miller M. Current bathing techniques in newborn nurseries in the United States. Am J Dis Child 1983;137(6):529–30.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barr J. The umbilical cord: To treat or not to treat? Midwives Chronicle and Nursing Notes 1984;97(1158):224–26.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ronchera-Oms C, Hernández C, Jimémez, NV. Antiseptic cord care reduces bacterial colonisation but delays cord detachment. Arch Dis Child 1994;71(7);F70.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Samuel M, Freeman NV, Vaishnav A, et al. Necrotizing fasciitis: A serious complication of omphalitis in neonates. J Pediatr Surg 1994;29(11):1414–16.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvardo, CJ. Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991;338(8763):339–43.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rais-Bahrami K, Schulte EB, Navqi M. Postnatal timing of spontaneous umbilical cord separation. Am J Perinatol 1993;10(6):453–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson CB, Ochs HD, Almquist J, et al. When is umbilical cord separation delayed? J Pediatr 1985;107(2):292–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bygdeman S, Hambraeus A, Henningson A, et al. Influence of ethanol with and without chlorhexidine on the bacterial colonization of the umbilicus of newborn infants. Infect Control 1984;5(6):275–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smales O. A comparison of umbilical cord treatment in the control of superficial infection. N Z Med J 1988;101:453–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 3rd floor, Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G3, Canada

    Jennifer M. Medves RN, MN (Graduate Student) & Beverley A. C. O’Brien RN, DNSc (Associate Professor, Member of Perinatal Research Centre)

Authors
  1. Jennifer M. Medves RN, MN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beverley A. C. O’Brien RN, DNSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer M. Medves RN, MN.

Additional information

This project was funded by grants from the Perinatal Research Centre at the University of Alberta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Medves, J.M., O’Brien, B.A.C. Cleaning Solutions and Bacterial Colonization in Promoting Healing and Early Separation of the Umbilical Cord in Healthy Newborns. Can J Public Health 88, 380–382 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403910

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403910

Search

Navigation