Bansal Beatrix Chandra, Wiebe Robert A, Perkins Sebrina D, Abramo Thomas J
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 75390-9063, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;20(5):469-72. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.35501.
This study was designed to compare the infection rates of simple lacerations irrigated with tap water versus sterile normal saline before repair. Patients with simple lacerations to an extremity that were less than 8 hours from injury were prospectively enrolled. Exclusions from the study were: dog bites, hand lacerations, immunocompromised patients, and those on antibiotics at the time of injury. Patients who qualified were randomized to receive tap water or normal saline for wound irrigation. Before and after irrigation, wound cultures were obtained. After the procedure was complete, patients were scheduled for a 48 hour follow-up wound check. A total of 46 patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-four patients were randomized to the normal saline group and 21 were assigned to receive tap water irrigation. There were 2 infected lacerations in both the tap water and normal saline groups. The organisms cultured from the wounds in both groups were similar and there was no difference in colony counts when tap water was used. The use of tap water for the irrigation of lacerations does not result in the growth of unusual organisms or increase the colony counts of organisms. Wound infection rates were the same in both groups. This pilot study suggests that the use of tap water for irrigation of wounds may be safe. Further validation is necessary.
本研究旨在比较在修复前用自来水冲洗与用无菌生理盐水冲洗的单纯性撕裂伤的感染率。前瞻性纳入了受伤时间少于8小时的四肢单纯性撕裂伤患者。本研究的排除标准为:犬咬伤、手部撕裂伤、免疫功能低下患者以及受伤时正在使用抗生素的患者。符合条件的患者被随机分为接受自来水或生理盐水冲洗伤口。冲洗前后均进行伤口培养。手术完成后,安排患者进行48小时的伤口随访检查。共有46例患者纳入本研究。24例患者被随机分为生理盐水组,21例被分配接受自来水冲洗。自来水组和生理盐水组均有2例撕裂伤发生感染。两组伤口培养出的微生物相似,使用自来水时菌落计数无差异。用自来水冲洗撕裂伤不会导致异常微生物生长或增加微生物的菌落计数。两组伤口感染率相同。这项初步研究表明,用自来水冲洗伤口可能是安全的。还需要进一步验证。