Comparing the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine in preventing surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractSurgical site infections (SSIs) post‐surgery impact patient health and raise healthcare costs. This meta‐analysis examines the efficacy of antiseptics, chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine, in reducing SSIs, including various types, to settle ongoing debates on their comparative effectiveness. A systematic literature search conforming to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was executed on four established databases without temporal restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients aged 18 years or older undergoing clean or potentially contaminated surgeries were included. Two independent evaluators carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, adhering to Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Statistical analyses were performed using chi‐square tests and the I2 index to evaluate heterogeneity, and meta‐analyses were conducted employing either fixed‐effects or random‐effects models as warranted by the heterogeneity assessments. A total of 16 RCTs were included after rigorous selection from an initial pool of 1742 articles. The studies demonstrated low levels of heterogeneity, supporting the use of a fixed‐effects model. Chlorhexidine exhibited statistically lower rates of overall SSIs (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.64–0.88; p < 0.001), superficial SSIs (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47–0.82; p < 0.001) and deep SSIs compared to povidone–iodine. The study furnishes compelling evidence in favour of chlorhexidine as a more efficacious antiseptic agent over povidone–iodine in minimizing the risk of various types of SSIs.