Skip to content

Tapwater versus chlorhexidine Incidence of secundary infection after woundcleaning

Tapwater versus chlorhexidine Incidence of secundary infection after woundcleaning - Tapwater versus chlorhexidine for woundcleaning

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON38157
Enrollment
500
Registered
2011-07-19
Start date
2011-08-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2024-05-06

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

Conditions

(secundary) wound infection or inflammation

Interventions

Instead of wound cleaning with chlorhexidine, the wound will be irrigated with tap water that is being sucked into a sterile syringe.

Sponsors

HagaZiekenhuis
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged 18 years and older. Patients attending the emergency department of the Haga Hospital with a skin laceration that requires tissue adhesives or sutures. Patients that are able to visit the Haga Hospital 6-8 days after primary visit for wound inspection. Patients do speak Dutch

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients aged under 18 years. Patients with hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine.

Design outcomes

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Do patients prefer cleaning with tap water or chlorhexidine? Is wound healing different in wounds cleaned with tap water or chlorhexidine? Is there a difference in experiencing pain between cleaning with tap water of chlorhexidin?

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The endpoint of this study is the percentage wound infection after wound treatment with stitches of tissue adhesive in the group cleaned with tap water and in the group cleaned with chlorhexidine.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)