Tap Water Versus Normal Saline for Wound Irrigation

Completed · Not applicable

Conditions studied: Wound Infection Rate

In brief

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.

Key facts

Study ID
NCT01564342
Run by
Stanford University
People needed
660
Starts
1994-06-01
Expected to finish
1996-06-01
Last updated by the study team
2012-03-27

Who can join

Age: 1 and older. Sex: any. Healthy volunteers: not accepted.

You may qualify if…

You may not qualify if…

Where it is running

Full record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Trial information comes from ClinicalTrials.gov and is refreshed daily. TrialsForMe does not provide medical care and does not run the studies it lists.