Comparing the Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Versus Normal Saline in Laparotomy Wound Irrigation to Prevent Surgical Site Infections: A Meta-Analysis

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a known complication of laparotomies and intra-abdominal surgical operations leading to remarkable consequences on mortality, morbidity, and expenses. The study aims to assess the efficiency of irrigating laparotomy incision sites with povidone-iodine (PVI) or normal saline (NS) in diminishing the rate of SSIs in patients undergoing gastrointestinal operations for varying indications. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) highlighting the contribution of laparotomy wound irrigation with PVI in opposition to NS in patients planned for laparotomy addressing numerous gastrointestinal issues, and their role in reducing SSI risk were obtained via searching of standard electronic medical databases. The analysis was conducted by utilizing meta-analysis principles procured by statistical software RevMan version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). The yield of medical databases exploration and inspection was 13 RCTs on 3816 patients who underwent laparotomy for different gastrointestinal operations. There were 1900 patients in the PVI group whereas 1916 patients received NS wound irrigations preceding closure of the laparotomy skin wound. In the random effects model analysis, the use of PVI for laparotomy wound irrigation was associated with the reduced risk (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% CI (0.30, 0.98), Z = 2.04, P = 0.04) of SSIs. Nevertheless, there was outstanding heterogeneity (Tau2 = 70; chi2 = 40.19, df = 12; P = 0.0001; I2 = 70%) among the included studies. According to the comprehensive analysis outcomes, it has been clinically proven that the use of PVI is highly effective in reducing the occurrence of SSIs, as well as their subsequent implications.