Is tap water a safe alternative to normal saline for wound irrigation in the community setting? Comparison between sterile saline and tap water for the cleaning of acute traumatic soft tissue wounds. A multicenter comparison of tap water versus sterile saline for wound irrigation. Tap water for irrigation of lacerations. Wound irrigation in children: saline solution or tap water? Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Effect of washing closed head and neck wounds on wound healing and infection. Effects of topical honey on post-operative wound infections due to gram positive and gram negative bacteria following caesarean sections and hysterectomies. [Modification of postoperative wound healing by showering]. Combining drinking water treatment and hand washing for diarrhoea prevention, a cluster randomised controlled trial.
This double-blind randomised controlled trial compared the effects of tap water and normal saline on the healing and infection rates of acute and chronic wounds.
                The trial was conducted in two metropolitan community health centres in New South Wales, Australia. Thirty-five patients with 49 acute or chronic wounds were randomised to receive wound irrigation with either normal saline or tap water.
                Statistical analysis demonstrated there was no significant difference between the infection and healing rates in wounds irrigated with normal saline or tap water.
                Although the small sample size is a limitation of this study, the researchers conclude that drinkable tap water appears to provide a safe alternative to normal saline for wound cleansing and may be preferred by some patients. To find out if there were any differences in infection rates if acute traumatic soft tissue wounds were cleaned with tap water instead of sterile saline.
                Randomised study.
                Emergency department at one city hospital.
                705 consecutive patient with soft tissue wounds less than six hours old that did not penetrate a viscus, cavity, or joint and could be treated by primary suture.
                Randomly allocated to have the wound cleaned with either sterile saline or tap water in addition to debridement.
                Rate of wound infection, the presence of which was indicated by pus in the wound and prolonged healing.
                The infection rate in wounds cleaned with sterile saline was 10.3% compared with 5.4% in wounds cleaned with tap water (p less than 0.05). Infected wounds were significantly larger than uninfected ones (p less than 0.05) and more likely to be located on a lower extremity (p less than 0.05). There were no microbiological differences between the two groups, and no bacterial species grown from tap water was subsequently grown from an infected wound.
                Sterile saline should be replaced by tap water for the cleaning of acute traumatic superficial soft tissue wounds. To compare wound infection rates for irrigation with tap water versus sterile saline before closure of wounds in the emergency department.
                The study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial conducted at two Level 1 urban hospitals and a suburban community hospital. Subjects were a convenience sample of adults presenting with acute simple lacerations requiring sutures or staples. Subjects were randomized to irrigation in a sink with tap water or with normal saline using a sterile syringe. Wounds were closed in the standard fashion. Subjects were asked to return to the emergency department for suture removal. Those who did not return were contacted by telephone. Wounds were considered infected if there was early removal of sutures or staples, if there was irrigation and drainage of the wound, or if the subject needed to be placed on antibiotics. Equivalence of the groups was met if there was less than a doubling of the infection rate.
                A total of 715 subjects were enrolled in the study. Follow-up data were obtained on 634 (88%) of enrolled subjects. Twelve (4%) of the 300 subjects in the tap water group had wound infections, compared with 11 (3.3%) of the 334 subjects in the saline group. The relative risk was 1.21 (95% confidence interval = 0.5 to 2.7).
                Equivalent rates of wound infection were found using either irrigant. The results of this multicenter trial evaluating tap water as an irrigant agree with those from previous single institution trials. 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.
                Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. Irrigation, a critical component of wound management, is commonly performed with sterile normal saline solution. The purpose of this study was to compare the infection rates of wounds irrigated with normal saline solution versus those of wounds irrigated with running tap water.
                A prospective trial was conducted in an urban pediatric emergency department. Tap water pressure and flow rates were measured, and cultures were obtained before the study and at 5 months after study initiation. Patients 1 to 17 years of age presenting to the pediatric ED with a simple laceration were eligible. Exclusion criteria included immunocompromise, complicated lacerations, or current use of or need for antibiotics. Patients were allocated to the running tap water group or the standard normal saline solution irrigation group. Wounds were closed in standard fashion. Patients returned to the pediatric ED in 48 to 72 hours for evaluation.
                Two hundred seventy-one patients were enrolled in the normal saline solution group and 259 in the tap water group. Tap water and normal saline solution pressures and flow rates differed. The groups did not differ in terms of patient demographic characteristics or wound characteristics. However, more wounds were located on the hand in the tap water group (21.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.3% to 27.1%) compared with those in the normal saline solution group (9.2%; 95% CI 5.9% to 13.4%). The wound infection rates were similar in the 2 groups (normal saline solution group: 2.8% [95% CI 1.1% to 5.7%] versus running tap water group: 2.9% [95% CI 1.2% to 5.9%]).
                There were no clinically important differences in infection rates between wounds irrigated with tap water or normal saline solution. Tap water might be an effective alternative to normal saline solution for wound irrigation in children. Vacuum-assisted closure has become a new technique in the challenging management of contaminated, acute, and chronic wounds. Although promising clinical results have been described, scientific proof to substantiate the mechanism of action of this therapy is scarce. In the present study, we examined whether the positive effect on wound healing found in vacuum-assisted closure-treated wounds could be explained by an effect on the bacterial load. Fifty-four patients who needed open wound management before surgical closure were included in this study. Wounds were randomized to either vacuum-assisted closure therapy (n= 29) or treatment by conventional moist gauze therapy (n= 25). Healing was characterized by development of a clean granulating wound bed ("ready for surgical therapy") and reduction of wound surface area. To quantify bacterial load, biopsies were collected. No significant difference was found in time needed to reach "ready for surgical therapy" comparing both therapies. Wound surface area reduction was significantly larger in vacuum-assisted closure-treated wounds: 3.8 +/- 0.5 percent/day (mean +/- SEM) compared to conventional-treated wounds (1.7 +/- 0.6 percent/day; p < 0.05). The total quantitative bacterial load was generally stable in both therapies. However, nonfermentative gram negative bacilli showed a significant decrease in vacuum-assisted closure-treated wounds (p < 0.05), whereas Staphylococcus aureus showed a significant increase in vacuum-assisted closure-treated wounds (p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study shows a positive effect of vacuum-assisted closure therapy on wound healing, expressed as a significant reduction of wound surface area. However, this could not be explained by a significant quantitative reduction of the bacterial load. A group of 100 patients were compared with 100 control patients. Both groups had either traumatic or surgically incised clean wounds of the head and neck. The groups were similar except that the 100 test patients were allowed to wash their head and neck wounds with soap and water within hours after the repair, while the control group kept their wounds dry until all of the sutures were removed. On the basis of this study, we believe that allowing patients to wash their wounds and bathe routinely as early as 8 hours after wound closure hs no effect on wound or infection. We believe that good technique during surgery for incision or laceration closure is much more important than any manipulation of the wound or of the general body systems. The possible therapeutic effect of topical crude undiluted honey in the treatment of severe acute postoperative wound infections was studied. Fifty patients having postoperative wound infections following caesarean sections or total abdominal hysterectomies with gram positive or gram negative bacterial infections were allocated in two groups. Twenty-six patients (group A) were treated with 12 hourly application of crude honey and 24 patients (group B) were treated with local antiseptics: spirit (70% Ethanol) and povidone-iodine. Both groups received systemic antibiotics according to culture and sensitivity. Results showed that eradication of bacterial infections was obtained after 6 +/- 1.9 days (mean +/- SD) in group A and after 14.8 +/- 4.2 days in group B (p <0.05). Period for antibiotics use was 6.88 +/- 1.7 days in-group A and 15.45 +/- 4. 37 in-group B (p <0.05). Complete wound healing was evident after 10. 73 +/- 2.5 days in group A and after 22.04 +/- 7.33 in group B (p <0. 05). Size of postoperative scar was 3.62 +/- 1.4 mm after using topical honey and was 8.62 +/- 3.8 mm after local antiseptics (p <0. 05). The mean hospital stay was 9.36 +/- 1.8 days in group A and 19. 91 +/- 7.35 days in group B (p <0.05). After using honey, 22/26 patients (84.4%) showed complete wound healing without wound disruption or need for re-suturing and only 4 patients showed mild dehiscence. In group B, 12/24 patients (50%) showed complete wound healing and 12 patients showed wound dehiscence, six of them needed re-suturing under general anesthesia. We concluded that topical application of crude undiluted honey could (1) faster eradication of bacterial infections, (2) reduce period of antibiotic use and hospital stay, (3) accelerate wound healing, (4) prevent wound dehiscence and need for re-suturing and (5) result in minimal scar formation. Usually postoperative wounds are kept dry until the stitches are removed. In a prospective randomized study early water contact was allowed in order to test postoperative wound healing in 817 patients operated on for varicose veins. Regardless of whether the wounds were kept dry or had water contact with or without shower foam from the second postoperative day, no infection was registered. To evaluate the effectiveness of point of use water treatment with flocculent-disinfectant on reducing diarrhoea and the additional benefit of promoting hand washing with soap.
                The study was conducted in squatter settlements of Karachi, Pakistan, where diarrhoea is a leading cause of childhood death. Interventions were randomly assigned to 47 neighbourhoods. Households in 10 neighbourhoods received diluted bleach and a water vessel; nine neighbourhoods received soap and were encouraged to wash hands; nine neighbourhoods received flocculent-disinfectant water treatment and a water vessel; 10 neighbourhoods received disinfectant-disinfectant water treatment and soap and were encouraged to wash hands; and nine neighbourhoods were followed as controls. Field workers visited households at least once a week from April to December 2003 to promote use of the interventions and to collect data on diarrhoea.
                Study participants in control neighbourhoods had diarrhoea on 5.2% of days. Compared to controls, participants living in intervention neighbourhoods had a lower prevalence of diarrhoea: 55% (95% CI 17%, 80%) lower in bleach and water vessel neighbourhoods, 51% (95% CI 12%, 76%) lower in hand washing promotion with soap neighbourhoods, 64% lower (95% CI 29%, 90%) in disinfectant-disinfectant neighbourhoods, and 55% (95% CI 18%, 80%) lower in disinfectant-disinfectant plus hand washing with soap neighbourhoods.
                With an intense community-based intervention and supplies provided free of cost, each of the home-based interventions significantly reduced diarrhoea. There was no benefit by combining hand washing promotion with water treatment.
There is no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults or children increases or reduces infection. There is not strong evidence that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection. In the absence of potable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as wound cleansing agents.