Activated chlorine dioxide solution can be used as a biocompatible antiseptic wound irrigant

Antiseptic versus non-antiseptic solutions for preventing infection in acute traumatic wounds: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of antiseptic solutions to that of non-antiseptic solutions in reducing wound infection rate, reducing bacterial load and improving wound healing.

METHOD

We searched PubMed MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ProQuest Medical Database and medRxiv for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiseptic solutions with non-antiseptic solutions in simple, uncomplicated acute traumatic wounds. Qualitative data synthesis was employed. Risk of bias was assessed and GRADE assessment was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

In this systematic review, four studies with a total of 875 participants were included, of which two studies showed a significant reduction of wound infection rate using povidone-iodine (p=0.001 and p=0.03). The use of non-antiseptic solutions significantly increased bacterial load on acute traumatic wounds (p=0.0001). The quality of evidence was very low. No studies reported on wound healing outcome.

CONCLUSION

No robust conclusions can be implemented in clinical practice. Future studies are needed to compare the use of antiseptic and non-antiseptic solutions in acute traumatic wounds.

Effects of Chlorine Dioxide on Oral Hygiene - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Effective and selective oral rinses are required in the daily medical and dental practice. Currently mouthwashes used have substantial side effects.

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of chlorine dioxide-containing mouthwashes in comparison with other previously established mouth rinses in healthy adults using oral hygiene indices.

Methods

This work was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018099059) and carried out using multiple databases and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The search terms used were “chlorine dioxide” AND “oral”, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The primary outcome was the alteration of the plaque index (PI), while the secondary outcomes were the gingival index (GI) and bacterial counts. For the risk of bias assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used. Statistical analysis for data heterogeneity was performed by Q-value and I²-tests.

Results

364 articles were found in the databases. After the selection process, only five RCTs were eligible for meta-analysis. Data heterogeneity was low. There were no statistical differences in effectiveness between chlorine dioxide and other effective mouth rinses in PI (0.720±0.119 vs 0.745±0.131; 95%; confidence intervals (CIs): 0.487-0.952 vs 0.489-1.001, respectively) and GI (0.712±0.130 vs 0.745±0.131; 95% CIs: 0.457–0.967 vs 0.489–1.001, respectively) and also in bacterial counts.

Conclusion

Chlorine dioxide reduces both plaque and gingival indices and bacterial counts in the oral cavity similar to other routinely used oral rinses, however, the evidence supporting this outcome is very limited. Therefore, further large scale RCTs are needed to decrease the risk of bias.

Evaluation of inguinal vascular surgical scars treated with closed incisional negative pressure wound therapy using three-dimensional digital imaging-A randomized controlled trial on bilateral incisions

PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

Scar formation is an important, permanent surrogate marker for wound healing. The main aim of this randomized trial was to evaluate the effects of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) on scar formation in uncomplicated wound healing with 3-dimensional (3D) digital imaging.

BASIC PROCEDURES

Patients undergoing bilateral inguinal incisions after vascular surgery were randomized to receive iNPWT and standard dressing on separate sides. The incisional scars were documented at a median time of 808 days (range 394-1194) after surgery with 3D photography, which were objectively evaluated by two plastic surgeons using the Stony Brook scar evaluation scale (SBSES) and a 10-point graded numeric ranking scale (NRS10). Subjective evaluation was performed with the patient observer scar assessment scale (POSAS). Patients with surgical site infection or other wound complications were excluded to minimize bias. The p-values were calculated using McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired nominal and paired continuous data, respectively.

MAIN FINDINGS

Among 33 patients, 32 patients had undergone endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and 31 patients had transverse inguinal incisions. Objective and subjective scar evaluation showed no difference between iNPWT and standard dressing. In objective scorings, 18.8 and 21.9% received the highest possible SBSES total score in the iNPWT and standard dressing groups, while 43.8 and 37.5% received the highest possible NRS10 score, respectively. The inter-rater reliability between the two assessors for SBSES total score and NRS10 showed an intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.78 and 0.68 for NPWT and 0.70 and 0.77 for traditional dressing, respectively.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION

The present randomized trial showed that iNPWT and standard dressings on closed transverse inguinal incisions after EVAR resulted in equal subtle scar formation. Objective scar evaluation with 3D images showed good inter-rater agreement.