This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JOSE L. ZAMORA, MD; ROBERT W. FELDTMAN, MD
Houston

Arch Surg. 1983;118(3):367.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—In a recent report, Rodeheaver et al (ARCHIVES 1982; 117:181-186) reached the following conclusions: (1) Aqueous iodine solutions have a stronger and faster microbicidal action and contain more free iodine than povidone-iodine solution (P-I). (2) Iodophors do not decrease the rate of wound infection in contaminated experimental wounds. (3) "Iodine inhibits wound defenses." (4) "Exposure of contaminated wounds to iodine solutions results in a significantly higher infection rate." We will comment on these conclusions individually.

1. The slight antimicrobial in vitro superiority of aqueous iodine solution v P-I solution is irrelevant, since aqueous iodine has been out of clinical use in wound care since World War I due to its marked caustic action. Although P-I solution has less free iodine, it has excellent microbicidal activity even in low concentrations due to the narrow gap between its minimal inhibitory and minimal bactericidal concentrations for most bacteria of surgical . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?