Abbonarsi

A comparative meta-analysis of povidone–iodine–alcohol vs. chlorhexidine–alcohol for preoperative skin antisepsis in abdominal surgery - 14/05/25

Doi : 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116318 
Hua-Hsin Hsieh 1, Yueh Yu 1, Che-Jui Chang, Tzu-Yen Chang
 Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan 

Corresponding author. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryDepartment of SurgeryNational Cheng Kung University HospitalCollege of MedicineNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Abstract

Introduction

Abdominal surgeries are among the most frequently performed procedures globally and exhibit higher surgical site infection (SSI) rates, with associated complications significantly impacting morbidity and mortality. While alcohol-based antiseptics effectively reduce SSIs, debate persists over the relative efficacy of chlorhexidine–alcohol versus iodine–alcohol solutions. This meta-analysis systematically compares SSI rates in abdominal surgeries using these antiseptics, aiming to inform optimal preoperative practices.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted across the Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE databases to identify relevant studies. Meta-analysis was performed using the metafor package in R software, wherein risk ratios (RRs) for surgical site infections (SSIs) were compared between chlorhexidine–alcohol and iodine–alcohol groups in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on wound classification and procedural categories, including general surgery and obstetrics/gynecology. A random-effects model was utilized, with effect sizes presented alongside their 95 ​% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Our meta-analysis included 10 randomized controlled trials and found no significant difference in SSI risk between chlorhexidine–alcohol and iodine–alcohol in abdominal surgeries (RR, 1.20; 95 ​% CI, 0.94–1.54). Subgroup analyses for general surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and clean-contaminated wounds also showed no significant differences between antiseptics.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates no significant difference in SSI incidence between chlorhexidine–alcohol and iodine–alcohol as preoperative antiseptics for abdominal surgeries.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Graphical abstract




Image 1

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Highlights

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of chlorhexidine-alcohol vs. iodine-alcohol in preventing SSIs in abdominal surgeries.
A search of major databases identified 10 RCTs. Results showed no significant difference in SSI rates between the two antiseptic solutions (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.94–1.54).
Subgroup analyses for general surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and clean-contaminated wounds revealed no notable differences.
The findings indicate that both antiseptics are equally effective in reducing the incidence of SSIs in abdominal surgeries.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Chlorhexidine–alcohol, Iodine–alcohol, Abdominal surgery, Antisepsis, Surgical site infection


Mappa


© 2025  Elsevier Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 244

Articolo 116318- giugno 2025 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Association between surgeon age and surgical complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Baudolino Mussa, Barbara Defrancisco, Piero Petracco
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Is surgery a spectator sport? Third-year surgical clerkship case-log analysis at a community-based medical college
  • Ali Schroeder, Tamir Bresler, Philip Bohlmann, Anjali S. Kumar

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.