Trial reportJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Assessment of Pre-operative Vaginal Preparation for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.
Trial report in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal scrub-and-paint versus paint-only preparation in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical site infection and postoperative spotting outcomes in a randomised controlled trial.BMC women's health · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and safety of chlorhexidine vs. povidone-iodine for vaginal antisepsis in surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Determine the difference in microbial growth from the vagina and uterine manipulator among patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy after randomization to one of three vaginal preparation solutions (10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine). Method: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in an academic community hospital. Patients were ≥ 18 years old and scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and malignant indications. Results: Fifty patients were identified and randomized into each arm. Prior to surgery, the surgical team prepared the vaginal field using 10% Povidone-iodine, 2% Chlorhexidine, or 4% Chlorhexidine, according to group assignment. Cultures were collected from the vagina after initial preparation, prior to the colpotomy, and on surfaces of the uterine manipulator. Bacterial count from the baseline vaginal fornix/cervical canal cultures did not differ significantly among the three groups. There was a difference in bacterial count among the second cervical canal/vaginal fornix cultures (p < 0.01), with the Povidone-iodine arm demonstrating the highest level of growth of cultures (93.8%), followed by 2% Chlorhexidine (47.4%), and 4% Chlorhexidine (20%). There was no difference in growth on the uterine manipulator handle and no difference in vaginal itching or burning was found across the three arms postoperatively. Conclusion: Bacterial growth prior to colpotomy was the lowest with 4% Chlorhexidine followed by 2% Chlorhexidine, the Povidone-iodine group exhibited the highest bacterial growth. There was no difference in moderate to severe vaginal itching or burning. This showed that 4% Chlorhexidine is superior in reducing bacterial growth when used in laparoscopic hysterectomy.
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.