Linked Life Data

2344089

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/2344089

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1990-6-26
pubmed:abstractText
The purpose of our study was to examine which of the wound irrigants commonly used in the emergency department is the most efficacious in reducing the risk of wound infection. Five hundred thirty-one patients were randomized into three groups. All patients had their wounds irrigated using a 20-mL syringe with a 20-gauge IV catheter. Patients received irrigation with normal saline (NS), 1% povidone-iodine solution (PI), or pluronic F-68 (Shur-Clens) (SC). Treatment was assigned by month; all wounds were treated with one solution during each of the three months of the study. The wounds were closed with interrupted, simple nylon sutures. The number of wound infections was 13 (6.9%), eight (4.3%), and nine (5.6%) for groups receiving NS, PI, and SC, respectively. This was not statistically significant. We conclude that there is not a significant difference in infection rates among sutured wounds irrigated with NS, PI, or SC. The cost of NS was the lowest of the three treatments in our ED.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0196-0644
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
19
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
704-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2010-11-18
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1990
pubmed:articleTitle
A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Emergency Medicine, Darnall Army Community Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas 76544-5063.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial