Effect of Wound Irrigation with Povidone Iodine Versus Normal Saline on Superficial Incisional Surgical Site Infection Following Laparotomy for Peritonitis.

Akeem Aderogba Adeleke, Funmilola Olanike Wuraola, Olalekan Olasehinde
{"title":"Effect of Wound Irrigation with Povidone Iodine Versus Normal Saline on Superficial Incisional Surgical Site Infection Following Laparotomy for Peritonitis.","authors":"Akeem Aderogba Adeleke, Funmilola Olanike Wuraola, Olalekan Olasehinde","doi":"10.4103/jwas.jwas_24_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>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 (<i>P</i> = 0.32). Klebsiella species were the dominant organisms isolated from the infected wounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73993,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the West African College of Surgeons","volume":"15 2","pages":"203-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11908728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the West African College of Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jwas.jwas_24_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 (P = 0.32). Klebsiella species were the dominant organisms isolated from the infected wounds.

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信