Observational studyInternational wound journal2021
Glove and instrument changing to prevent bacterial contamination in infected wound debridement and closure procedures: A prospective observational study.
Observational study in International wound journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a zipline skin closure device in gastroenterological surgery: a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing wound infection incidence, operation time, and cosmesis.Surgery today · 2025Trial
- Preoperative Surgical-Field Antisepsis with a pH-Optimized Sodium Hypochlorite Wound Cleanser in Microsurgical Diabetic Foot Reconstruction: A Single-Center Feasibility Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Allograft contamination during suture preparation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an ex vivo study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Glove and instrument changing to prevent bacterial contamination in infected wound debridement and closure procedures: A prospective observational study.International wound journal · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many surgeons use a single table of instruments for both excisional debridement and coverage/closure of infected wounds. This study investigates the effectiveness of a two-table set-up of sterile instruments, in addition to glove exchange, to reduce instrument cross-contamination during these procedures. This is a prospective, single-site, institutional review board-approved observational study of surgical debridements of infected wounds over a 17-month period. Two separate sterile surgical tables were used for each case: Table A for initial wound debridement (debridement set-up) and Table B for wound coverage/closure (clean set-up). Swabs of each table and its respective instruments were taken after debridement but prior to coverage/closure. The primary outcome of interest was bacterial growth at 48 hours. There were 72 surgical cases included in this study. Culture results of Table A demonstrated bacterial growth in 23 of 72 (32%) cases at 48 hours compared with 5of 72 (7%) from Table B (P = .001). These data suggest that there is significant bacterial contamination of surgical instruments used for debridement of infected wounds. Use of a two-table set-up reduced instrument cross-contamination by 78%, suggesting avoidable re-contamination of the wound.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.