Abstract
Ophthalmologists frequently face patients who refuse asepsis protocols involving povidone-iodine (PI) due to claims of an allergy to iodine. Such patients usually base this claim on previous reactions to shellfish consumption or to imaging procedures that used iodine-based contrast agents. Allergy to iodine, however, is biologically impossible, and iodine deficiency causes severe developmental problems, including mental retardation. Furthermore, shellfish allergy is due to tropomyosins in muscle tissue, and reactions to intravascular contrast dyes are due to hyperosmolar solutions; neither "allergy" is due to iodine. PI, which contains 9-12% iodine, is the preferred antiseptic for ophthalmic procedures. Experience shows that PI can be administered safely to patients claiming iodine allergy. True allergy to PI is rare and, if indicated, skin patch testing can be performed prior to surgery. Patients who react adversely to highly concentrated (5-10%) PI usually experience toxicity to the corneal and conjunctival epithelium after topical administration. Dilute (0.1-0.25%) PI kills microbes quicker than higher concentrations but for shorter periods of time because the total dose of iodine is smaller. Repeated administration (every 20-30 s) of dilute PI effectively kills microbes for as long as necessary with little risk of epithelial toxicity.