Skip to content

Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine Impregnated Gauze Versus Povidone Iodine Dressing in Post Trauma Wound Care

Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine Impregnated Gauze Versus Povidone Iodine Dressing in Post Trauma Wound Care

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07456072
Enrollment
176
Registered
2026-03-06
Start date
2026-05-13
Completion date
2026-08-12
Last updated
2026-09-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Wound Healing, Wound Infection Post-Traumatic

Brief summary

To compare rate of infection and wound healing between chlorhexidine impregnated paraffin gauze and dry povidone-iodine dressings in post-traumatic wounds.

Interventions

PROCEDUREChlorhexidine impregnated paraffin gauze

Paraffin gauze impregnated with 0.2 % chlorhexidine

Standard povidone iodine dressing

Sponsors

Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients 18-65 years of age with acute post-trauma wounds. * Wounds that are clean contaminated at presentation.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with the known allergies to Chlorhexidine or Povidone-Iodine. * Chronic wounds or those with underlying chronic conditions, such as diabetes. * Patients with compromised immune systems. * Pregnant females

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Change in infection rate3 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Change in Wound healing3 months

Countries

Pakistan

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Sep 18, 2026