1992
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1992.tb15813.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Severe Allergic Reaction to an Intra‐urethral Preparation Containing Chlorhexidine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 Anaphylaxis to a chlorhexidinecontaining gel was first reported in 1992. 5 Since then, several cases have been described predominately in the urological literature. 6 -10 All the previous reported cases of anaphylaxis to the chlorhexidine component of a lubricant were reported in male patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 Anaphylaxis to a chlorhexidinecontaining gel was first reported in 1992. 5 Since then, several cases have been described predominately in the urological literature. 6 -10 All the previous reported cases of anaphylaxis to the chlorhexidine component of a lubricant were reported in male patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous authors have noticed, retrospectively, that patients who suffered CHL‐induced anaphylaxis had subtle hypersensitivity reactions that were not investigated prior to full blown anaphylaxis. The most common being urticaria or an erythematous rash . In the perioperative setting, these symptoms are often dismissed, poorly documented and not followed up, culminating in missed opportunities to diagnose CHL allergy and avoid anaphylaxis .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite these conflicting results and the potential risks, the American Heart Association guidelines propose the use of a chlorhexidine hydrochloride rinse prior to invasive procedures (26,28). Confusion concerning the benefit from antibacterial mouthrinses mandates the need for supporting data before antibacterial rinses are suggested for widespread use, as the cost, side effects and false sense of secur-ity appear to outweigh any known benefit (16,81,89). Clearly, one should never assume that mouthrinses are in any manner a substitute for systemic antibiotics.…”
Section: Mouthrinsesmentioning
confidence: 99%