SynthesisBJS open2025
Antiseptic wound irrigation to prevent surgical site infection after laparotomy: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. 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.
- How to Manage Intraoperative Contamination.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infection after laparotomy is a major postoperative complication. The efficacy of prophylactic laparotomy wound irrigation to reduce surgical site infection rates remains controversial. This study evaluates the impact of antiseptic wound irrigation on surgical site infection prevention.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA 2020, included randomized clinical trials and observational studies (published after 1999) comparing antiseptic or saline irrigation versus saline or no irrigation before laparotomy closure in adult patients with surgical site infection as the primary outcome. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (September 2024). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evaluated evidence certainty.
resultsEighteen studies (6368 patients) reported an overall surgical site infection rate of 14.7%. Thirteen studies compared antiseptic with saline irrigation, showing no significant effect (relative risk 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.09; P = 0.159) with very low evidence certainty. Excluding laparoscopic cases and high-risk bias studies revealed a favourable effect for antiseptic irrigation (relative risk 0.75, 0.64 to 0.87; P < 0.001) with moderate certainty. Three studies compared antiseptic with no irrigation, and four compared saline with no irrigation. Meta-analysis indicated reduced surgical site infection rates with any irrigation (antiseptic or saline) versus no irrigation (relative risk 0.52, 0.37 to 0.74; P < 0.001) with moderate certainty.
conclusionWound irrigation (antiseptic or saline) likely reduces surgical site infection rates after laparotomy. Evidence comparing antiseptic versus saline is uncertain but suggests a potential benefit after excluding the high risk of bias studies. Further high-quality, standardized trials are needed.
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.