Search

Study design Prospective, single-blinded, randomized study. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of dilute betadine irrigation of spinal surgical wounds in prevention of postoperative wound infection. Summary and background Deep wound infection is a serious complication of spinal surgery that can jeopardize patient outcomes and increase costs. Povidoneiodine is a widely used antiseptic with bactericidal activity against a wide spectrum of pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dilute betadine solution in the prevention of wound infection after spinal surgery. Methods Four hundred and fourteen patients undergoing spinal surgery were randomly assigned to two groups. In group 1 (208 patients), surgical wounds were irrigated with dilute betadine solution (3.5% betadine) before wound closure. Betadine irrigation was not used in group 2 (206 patients). Otherwise, perioperative management was the same for both groups. Results Mean length of follow-up was 15.5 months in both groups (range, 6-24 months). No wound infection occurred in group 1. One superficial infection (0.5%) and six deep infections (2.9%) occurred in group 2. The differences between the deep infection rate (P = 0.0146) and total infection rate (P = 0.0072) were significant between the two groups. Conclusions Our report is the first prospective, single-blinded, randomized study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of dilute betadine solution irrigation for prevention of wound infection following spinal surgery. We recommended this simple and inexpensive measure following spinal surgery, particularly in patients with accidental wound contamination, risk factors for wound infection, or undergoing surgery in the absence of routine ultraviolet light, laminar flow, and isolation suits.

Intra-operative incidental contamination of surgical wounds is not rare. Povidone-iodine solution can be used to disinfect surgical wounds. Although povidone-iodine is a good broad-spectrum disinfecting agent, it has occasionally been reported to have a negative effect on wound healing and bone union. Therefore, its safety in a spinal surgery is unclear. A prospective, single-blinded, randomized study was accordingly conducted to evaluate the safety of povidone-iodine solution in spinal surgeries. Ascertained herein was the effect of wound irrigation with diluted povidone-iodine solution on wound healing, infection rate, fusion status and clinical outcome of spinal surgeries. Materials and methods: From January 2002 to August 2003, 244 consecutive cases undergoing primary instrumented lumbosacral posterolateral fusion due to degenerative spinal disorder with segmental instability had been collected and randomly divided into two groups: the study group (120 cases, 212 fusion levels) and the control group (124 cases, 223 fusion levels). Excluded were those patients with a prior spinal surgery, spinal trauma, malignant tumor, infectious spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, metabolic bone disease, skeletal immaturity or with an immunosuppressive treatment. In the former group, wounds were irrigated with 0.35% povidone-iodine solution followed by normal saline solution just before the bone-grafting and instrumentation procedure. However, only with normal saline solution in the latter. All the operations were done by the same surgeon with a standard technique. All the patients were treated in the same postoperative fashion as well. Later on, wound healing, infection rate, spinal bone fusion and clinical outcome were evaluated in both groups. Results: A significant improvement of back and leg pain scores, modified Japanese Orthopedic Association function scores (JOA) and ambulatory capacity have been observed in both groups. One hundred and seven patients in the study group and one hundred and nine in the control group achieved solid union. There was no infection in the study group but six deep infections in the control group. Wound dehiscence was noted in one group 1 and two group 2 patients. A subsequent statistical analysis revealed higher infection rate in the control group (P