ArticleJournal of the West African College of Surgeons
Effect of Wound Irrigation with Povidone Iodine Versus Normal Saline on Superficial Incisional Surgical Site Infection Following Laparotomy for Peritonitis.
Article in Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peritonitis is a surgical emergency arising mostly from the perforation or rupture of an abdominal hollow viscus. Surgical operations for peritonitis are often attended by high morbidity and sometimes mortality in severe cases. Surgical site infection (SSI) is perhaps the most common post-operative morbidity following laparotomy for peritonitis. Objective: To compare the rate of SSI in abdominal operations for peritonitis following wound irrigation with povidone iodine versus normal saline at a tertiary health institution in Nigeria. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, comparative hospital-based study over a year. Consecutive consenting adult patients were randomised into two groups in this study. The first group (A) used 500 mL of 1% povidone iodine for subcutaneous wound irrigation, while the second group (B) used 500 mL of normal saline for subcutaneous wound irrigation. Wound irrigation was done after an appropriate surgical procedure had been carried out based on the pathology. Wounds were assessed for SSI for up to 30 days after operation using the definition criteria by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). SSI rates were compared between the two groups. Result: Fifty-eight consecutive patients with generalised peritonitis over a one-year period were enrolled in this study, but 53 patients who completed the study were analysed. Thirty patients were males and 23 were females, and their mean age was 40.83 ± 17.96 years. Overall, 15 (28.3%) patients had incisional SSI. There were nine (34.6%) cases in the povidone group, while there were six (22.2%) in the saline group. This difference was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Wound irrigation with povidone iodine after laparotomy for peritonitis did not reduce the rate and severity of surgical site infection more when compared to normal saline. We suggest further studies with a large number of patients in a multi-centre study to explore further the effect of povidone iodine versus normal saline wound irrigation on SSI following laparotomy for peritonitis.
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.