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
ZAMORA JL, FELDTMAN RW. Povidone-lodine Strikes Back. Arch Surg. 1983;118(3):367. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1983.01390030091015
* * SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE * *
The JAMA Network Sites will be conducting routine maintenance from 10/20/2017 through 10/21/2017. During this window access to content and authentication may be intermittently available. The JAMA Store will be completely unavailable during the maintenance window.