ArticleCureus2024
Chlorhexidine Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Early Surgical Site Infection in Orthopaedic Surgeries in Resource-Limited Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prophylactic incisional wound irrigation with aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate vs aqueous povidone iodine for prevention of surgical site infection in elective abdominal surgery.Infection prevention in practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Surgical site infections (SSIs) in orthopaedic surgeries continue to pose significant challenges, leading to increased morbidity and strain on healthcare resources especially in resource-limited countries. Intra-operative wound irrigation is a common practice globally, although evidence supporting this practice is lacking. We aimed to determine the preventative effective of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for prevention of early SSIs in orthopaedic surgeries. Methods This is a prospective randomized controlled interventional clinical trial which was designed at National Hospital Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria. A total of 50 patients were enrolled and randomized into two groups: one receiving 0.05% CHG solution and the other receiving isotonic 0.9% saline for wound irrigation. The incidence of early SSIs (within 30 days) postoperatively was the primary outcome measured. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to intervention allocation. Results The results showed no significant difference in the clinical profile of the patients in both groups. There was a similar rate of early SSIs between the CHG (4%) and isotonic saline (4%) groups. Conclusions There is no significant difference between CHG and isotonic 0.9% saline in preventing early SSIs in clean orthopaedic implant surgeries. These data will improve care and allow appropriate allocation of scarce resources in resource-limited settings.
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.