Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Aida Najafian
- . Soghra Fallahi
- . Tahereh Khorgoei
- . Ataollah Ghahiri
- . Azin Alavi
- . Minoo Rajaei
- . Tasnim Eqbal Eftekhaari
Molecular Medicine Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
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.
Keywords
Preliminary births for 2004: Infant and maternal health. Health
E‑stats. National Center for Health Statistics; 2005.
2. Jain S, Jain M, Purwar S, Jain V, Jain P. Negative pressure wound
therapy for post‑cesarean, post‑hysterectomy dehisced abdominal
wounds. J Med Soc 2012;26:171‑4.
3. Bagnall NM, Vig S, Trivedi P. Surgical‑site infection. Surgery (Oxford)
2009;27:426‑30.
4. Bärwolff S, Sohr D, Geffers C, Brandt C, Vonberg RP, Halle H, et al.
Reduction of surgical site infections after Caesarean delivery using
surveillance. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:156‑61.
5. Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ. The impact of obesity on obstetrical
practice and outcome. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:898‑913.
6. Owens CD, Stoessel K. Surgical site infections: Epidemiology,
microbiology and prevention. J Hosp Infect 2008;70(Suppl 2):3‑10.
7. Leaper DJ. Surgical‑site infection. Br J Surg 2010;97:1601‑2.
8. Biondo S, Kreisler E, Fraccalvieri D, Basany EE, Codina‑Cazador A,
Ortiz H. Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection
for rectal cancer. A multivariate analysis on 2131 patients. Colorectal
Dis 2012;14:e95‑102.
9. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and TRends
in obesity among US adults, 1999‑2008. JAMA 2010;303:235‑41.
10. Davies GA, Maxwell C, McLeod L, Gagnon R, Basso M, Bos H, et al.
SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Obesity in pregnancy. No. 239,
February 2010. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010;110:167‑73.11. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Devkota P, Gross GA, Fraser VJ.
Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse cesarean
section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:477‑84.
12. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Classen D, Arias KM, Podgorny K, Burstin H,
et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care
hospitals. Strategies 2008;29:S51‑61.
13. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline
Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An
advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention
Project. Am J Surg 2005;189:395‑404.
14. Opøien HK, Valbø A, Grinde-Andersen A, Walberg M. Post-cesarean
surgical site infections according to CDC standards: Rates and risk
factors. A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
2007;86:1097‑102.
15. Sarsam SE, Elliott JP, Lam GK. Management of wound complications
from cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2005;60:462‑73.
16. Wechter ME, Pearlman MD, Hartmann KE. Reclosure of the
disrupted laparotomy wound: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol
2005;106:376‑83.
17. Nthumba PM, Stepita‑Poenaru E, Poenaru D, Bird P, Allegranzi B,
Pittet D, et al. Cluster‑randomized, crossover trial of the
efficacy of plain soap and water versus alcohol‑based rub for
surgical hand preparation in a rural hospital in Kenya. Br J Surg
2010;97:1621‑8.
18. Durani P, Leaper D. Povidone–iodine: Use in hand disinfection, skin
preparation and antiseptic irrigation. Int Wound J 2008;5:376‑87.
19. De Vivo A, Mancuso A, Giacobbe A, Priolo A, De Dominici R,
Maggio Savasta L. Wound length and corticosteroid administration
as risk factors for surgical site complications following cesarean
section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010;89:355‑9.
20. Boesch CE, Umek W. Effects of wound closure on wound healing
in gynecologic surgery: A systematic literature review. J Reprod
Med 2009;54:139‑44.
21. Wechter ME, Pearlman MD, Hartmann KE. Reclosure of the
disrupted laparotomy wound: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol
2005;106:376‑83.
22. Rose CH, Blessitt KL, Araghizadeh F, Morrison JC. Episiotomy
dehiscence that required intestinal diversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2005;193:1759‑60.
23. Jovanovic NS, Kocijancic DM, Terzic MM. Current approach
to episiotomy: Inevitable or unnecessary? Cent Eur J Med
2011;6:685‑90
)