Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

source extracted confidence: high 2026-04-09
#humans #randomized-controlled-trials-as-topic #surgical-wound-infection #therapeutic-irrigation

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

de et al., 2017 | Surg Infect (Larchmt) | Meta Analysis

Citation

de Jonge Stijn W, Boldingh Quirine J J, ... Boermeester Marja A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017;18(4):508-519. doi:10.1089/sur.2016.272

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. To reduce SSIs, prophylactic intra-operative wound irrigation (pIOWI) has been advocated, although the results to date are equivocal. To develop recommendations for the new World Health Organization (WHO) SSI prevention guidelines, a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted on the effectiveness of pIOWI using different agents as a means of reducing SSI. METHODS: The PUBMED, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and WHO databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either pIOWI with no pIOWI or with pIOWI using different solutions and techniques were retrieved with SSI as the primary outcome. Meta-analyses were performed, and odds ratios (OR) and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were suitable for analysis, and a distinction was made between intra-peritoneal, mediastinal, and incisional wound irrigation. A low quality of evidence demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for incisional wound irrigation with an aqueous povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution in clean and clean contaminated wounds (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.73; p = 0.007); 50 fewer SSIs per 1,000 procedures (from 19 fewer to 64 fewer)). Antibiotic irrigation had no significant effect in reducing SSIs (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.64-2.12; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: Low-quality evidence suggests considering the use of prophylactic incisional wound irrigation to prevent SSI with an aqueous povidone-iodine solution. Antibiotic irrigation does not show a benefit and therefore is discouraged.

Key Findings

Twenty-one studies were suitable for analysis, and a distinction was made between intra-peritoneal, mediastinal, and incisional wound irrigation. A low quality of evidence demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for incisional wound irrigation with an aqueous povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution in clean and clean contaminated wounds (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.73; p = 0.007); 50 fewer SSIs per 1,000 procedures (from 19 fewer to 64 fewer)). Antibiotic irrigation had no significant effect in red

Outcomes Measured

  • Requires manual extraction

Population

Field Value
Population See abstract
Sample Size See abstract
Age Range See abstract
Condition See abstract

MeSH Terms

  • Humans
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Surgical Wound Infection
  • Therapeutic Irrigation

Evidence Classification

  • Level: Meta Analysis
  • Publication Types: Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review
  • Vertical: iodine

Provenance

Source extracted via PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-04-09