A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Role of soap and water in the treatment of wound dehiscence compared to normal saline plus povidone-iodine: A randomized clinical trial. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in women after cesarean sections and evaluates different irrigation methods for wound care.
  • In a trial with 56 participants, one group received normal saline with soap while the other used normal saline with povidone-iodine to assess various outcomes related to wound healing.
  • Results showed no significant differences in healing time or hospitalization between the two methods, suggesting that using soap and saline is a safe alternative to povidone-iodine for post-surgical wound care.

Article Abstract

Background: The incidence of cesarean section is increased. About 3-30% of the women who undergo cesarean experience surgical site infections (SSIs). Many methods, have been used to decrease the incidence of SSIs, but despite much effort, no definite efficacious method has been suggested.

Materials And Methods: In this parallel, single-blinded, randomized control trial, 56 women with post-surgical superficial wound dehiscence were divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. One group was irrigated with normal saline for irrigation and Firooz® baby soapand the other with normal saline for irrigation and povidone-iodine. Formation of granulation tissue was monitored in both groups. Also, the reason for surgery, length of wound dehiscence, and duration of hospitalization and wound union after were compared in both group's.

Results: The soap group patients were irrigated for 4.18 ± 1.96 days compared to 5.36 ± 2.83 days for the patients in povidone-iodine group (P = 0.414). The granulation tissue was formed after 3.88 ± 1.94 days in the soap group compared to 4.48 ± 2.92 days in the other group (P = 0.391), and the duration of hospitalization was 5.48 ± 2.04 days in the soap group compared to 6.3 ± 2.95 days in the other group (P = 0.423). So, no differences were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion: It can be concluded since there is no difference between the results of two groups, irrigation with normal saline and soap is safe, easy and causes no harm or allergy compared with povidone iodine and normal saline.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946270PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.171799DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

normal saline
20
wound dehiscence
12
soap group
12
saline irrigation
8
granulation tissue
8
duration hospitalization
8
days soap
8
group compared
8
days group
8
group
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!