Trial reportClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes According to Preoperative Skin Preparation in Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture: A 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with hip fractures undergoing arthroplasty are typically old and frail, and superficial surgical site infections (SSIs) can delay mobilization and prolong hospitalization. Preoperative skin antisepsis is a low-cost, universally used intervention. However, clinical practice varies, and evidence from elective arthroplasty may not fully generalize to urgent hip fracture surgery. Sequential dual-antiseptic protocols combining povidone-iodine (PVI) and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) are increasingly adopted; however, the optimal order for "scrub" versus "paint" remains unclear. We compared the prophylactic efficacy of 3 skin preparation protocols using different sequences of PVI and CHG. Methods: In this single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 108 patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for hip fracture were randomly allocated to 3 groups based on the antiseptic agents used for the mechanical "scrub" and final "paint" steps: group 1 (PVI scrub/PVI paint), group 2 (PVI scrub/CHG paint), and group 3 (CHG scrub/PVI paint). The primary outcome was the rate of positive skin culture results immediately before draping and pathogen identification results. The secondary outcome was the incidence of superficial SSI. Results: Post-preparation culture positivity was significantly lower in the CHG-containing groups (group 2 and group 3: 5.6% each) than in the PVI-only group (group 1: 27.8%; Conclusions: The sequence of antiseptic application significantly influenced microbiological outcomes, with CHG-containing protocols demonstrating lower post-preparation culture positivity. A protocol using a CHG scrub followed by PVI paint provided the most effective bacterial suppression. Differences in superficial SSI rates were also observed and may reflect the impact of improved microbiological control. Optimizing the order of antiseptic administration may contribute to improved infection prevention in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.