This study is designed to compare the infection rates in wounds irrigated with sterile normal saline to those irrigated with chlorinated tap water. The hypothesis is that the wound infection rate subsequent to irrigation with tap water is not significantly different than the infection rate for wounds irrigated with sterile normal saline. Inclusion criteria are patients older than 1-year of age who present to the emergency department with a soft-tissue laceration requiring repair. Exclusion criteria include patients with any underlying immunocompromising illness, current use of antibiotics, puncture or bite wounds, underlying tendon or bone involvement, or wounds more than nine hours old. Patients are randomized to have their wounds irrigated either with tap water or sterile normal saline prior to closure, controlling for the volume and irrigation method used. Structured follow-up is completed at 48 hours and 30 days to determine the presence of infection. The primary outcome measure is the difference in wound infection rates between the two randomized groups.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
660
wounds were either irrigated with sterile normal saline or tap water.
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, California, United States
Wound Infection at 48 hours
The primary outcome for this study is the difference in wound infection rates between the two randomized groups. It is assessed at 48 hours
Time frame: 48 hours
wound infection manifest at 30 days
patients are again contacted at 30 days after repair of their wound to assess for evidence of delayed or late infections
Time frame: 30 days
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.