ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Effect of Commercially Available Wound Irrigation Solutions on Uninfected Host Tissue in a Murine Model.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tactical use of irrigants in open orthopaedic procedures: 'what to use & when'.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Impact of a Novel Antiseptic Lavage Solution on Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Transitions.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Commercially available irrigation solutions are used to reduce bacterial contamination and prevent surgical site infections. However, the effect of these solutions on the healing capacity of tissue has not been well-established. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 5 commercially available irrigation solutions on host tissue in a murine model. Methods: There were 5 treatment groups: bacitracin, Clorpactin, Irrisept, Prontosan, Bactisure, and normal saline control. The irrigation solutions were applied to the wound for 30 seconds or 1 minute, as per the manufacturer's instructions, and then washed with normal saline. Mice were sacrificed at 3 days and 10 days. The tissue was examined histologically for inflammation, edema, granulation tissue formation, and re-epithelialization. Granulation tissue formation and re-epithelialization were surrogates for effective wound healing. Results: All of the irrigation solutions had negative effects on host tissue in the acute phase. The inflammation and edema were improved in the later phase (10 days). Recovery and healing of the open wounds were observed for all groups at 10 days. The antiseptic irrigation solutions had similar cytotoxic effects on host tissue at 3 days and did not have delayed or compromised wound healing at 10 days when compared to normal saline control. Conclusions: Single short-duration use of these commercially available antiseptic irrigation solutions appears to be safe in an uninfected wound. Data from this study will provide surgeons with useful information regarding the safety of using antiseptic wound irrigation solutions intraoperatively for prevention of surgical site infections.
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.