Medical mythology, misconceptions, and misinformation: does iodine impede wound healing?

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY

Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice Pub Date : 2023-09-01

Christopher Girgis, Mehmet A Suludere, P Andrew Crisologo, Lawrence A Lavery

{"title":"Medical mythology, misconceptions, and misinformation: does iodine impede wound healing?","authors":"Christopher Girgis, Mehmet A Suludere, P Andrew Crisologo, Lawrence A Lavery","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: PI has been shown to be effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and to be cytotoxic to a variety of cell types. Such findings led to the widespread belief that PI interferes with wound healing.Objective: This article reviews laboratory studies, animal wound studies, and clinical studies that examine the efficacy and safety of iodine-based wound products in wound healing.Methods: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases without time restrictions, and 62 articles were selected for complete evaluation. Fourteen RCTs and 5 comparative studies that evaluated PI and 15 RCTs that evaluated CI were included.Results: In 63% (n = 12) of the PI studies, there was no difference between PI and controls and in 5% (n = 1) PI performed significantly better than the comparator. In 31% (n = 6), outcomes were better with controls than with PI. In the RCTs on CI, 64% (n = 9) of the studies found no difference between CI and controls. Thirty-five percent (n = 5) showed significantly positive influence of CI compared with controls.Conclusions: Both CI and PI appear to be safe, with no evidence that these products impede wound healing, are associated with more infections, or require more amputations compared with other modalities. PI can effectively be used for short periods of time, and CI is an effective wound care modality for chronic wounds.","PeriodicalId":23752,"journal":{"name":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: PI has been shown to be effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and to be cytotoxic to a variety of cell types. Such findings led to the widespread belief that PI interferes with wound healing.

Objective: This article reviews laboratory studies, animal wound studies, and clinical studies that examine the efficacy and safety of iodine-based wound products in wound healing.

Methods: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases without time restrictions, and 62 articles were selected for complete evaluation. Fourteen RCTs and 5 comparative studies that evaluated PI and 15 RCTs that evaluated CI were included.

Results: In 63% (n = 12) of the PI studies, there was no difference between PI and controls and in 5% (n = 1) PI performed significantly better than the comparator. In 31% (n = 6), outcomes were better with controls than with PI. In the RCTs on CI, 64% (n = 9) of the studies found no difference between CI and controls. Thirty-five percent (n = 5) showed significantly positive influence of CI compared with controls.

Conclusions: Both CI and PI appear to be safe, with no evidence that these products impede wound healing, are associated with more infections, or require more amputations compared with other modalities. PI can effectively be used for short periods of time, and CI is an effective wound care modality for chronic wounds.

本刊更多论文

医学神话、误解和错误信息：碘会阻碍伤口愈合吗？

引言：PI已被证明对广谱细菌有效，并对多种细胞类型具有细胞毒性。这些发现导致人们普遍认为PI会干扰伤口愈合。目的：本文综述了碘类伤口产品在伤口愈合中的有效性和安全性的实验室研究、动物伤口研究和临床研究。方法：作者在没有时间限制的情况下搜索PubMed和Scopus数据库，选择62篇文章进行完整评估。纳入了14项随机对照试验和5项评估PI的比较研究，以及15项评估CI的随机对照试验。结果：63%（n=12）的PI研究中，PI与对照组之间没有差异，5%（n=1）的PI表现明显优于对照组。31%（n=6）的患者，对照组的疗效优于PI组。在CI的随机对照试验中，64%（n=9）的研究发现CI与对照组之间没有差异。与对照组相比，35%（n=5）的患者表现出CI的显著积极影响。结论：与其他方式相比，CI和PI似乎都是安全的，没有证据表明这些产品阻碍伤口愈合，与更多的感染有关，或需要更多的截肢。PI可以在短时间内有效使用，CI是一种有效的慢性伤口护理模式。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice 医学-皮肤病学

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

11.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Wounds is the most widely read, peer-reviewed journal focusing on wound care and wound research. The information disseminated to our readers includes valuable research and commentaries on tissue repair and regeneration, biology and biochemistry of wound healing, and clinical management of various wound etiologies. Our multidisciplinary readership consists of dermatologists, general surgeons, plastic surgeons, vascular surgeons, internal medicine/family practitioners, podiatrists, gerontologists, researchers in industry or academia (PhDs), orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. These practitioners must be well equipped to deal with a myriad of chronic wound conditions affecting their patients including vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, dermatological disorders, and more. Whether dealing with a traumatic wound, a surgical or non-skin wound, a burn injury, or a diabetic foot ulcer, wound care professionals turn to Wounds for the latest in research and practice in this ever-growing field of medicine.