Trial reportWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2026
Comparative efficacy of intraoperative wound irrigation with aqueous chlorhexidine versus normal saline to prevent surgical site infections: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2026. 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.
- Interpreting the evidence for chlorhexidine wound irrigation in contaminated abdominal surgery.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) remain a major concern after abdominal surgery, with incidences of 15-22%. Intraoperative wound irrigation (IOWI) before closure is routinely performed to reduce bacterial contamination, but the benefit of antiseptic irrigation, such as aqueous chlorhexidine, remains uncertain.
methodsThis double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. A total of 408 adults undergoing abdominal surgery with clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds were randomized (1:1) to receive IOWI with either aqueous chlorhexidine or normal saline before skin closure. Randomization was computer-generated with block design, and outcomes were assessed at 30 days postoperatively.
resultsAmong 408 patients (204 per group), SSIs occurred in 21 patients (10.3%) in the aqueous chlorhexidine group and 28 (13.7%) in the saline group (overall 12.0%). The difference was not statistically significant (risk difference - 3.4%; 95% CI - 9.7-2.9%; P = 0.27). No significant differences were found in wound seroma, evisceration, hospital stay, or pain scores.
conclusionsAqueous chlorhexidine irrigation did not demonstrate statistically significant superiority over normal saline for preventing SSI in this population. As this trial was neither designed nor powered as an equivalence or non-inferiority study, the absence of a statistically significant difference should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence between the two irrigation strategies.
trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry Number (TCTR20211027010).
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.