<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976480</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>2016-025</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT02976480</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>The Irrigation Or No Irrigation In Simple Lacerations Trials</brief_title>
  <acronym>ION-SiLac</acronym>
  <official_title>The Irrigation Or No Irrigation In Simple Lacerations Trials</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Université de Sherbrooke</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>Agence de la Sante et des Services Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Université de Sherbrooke</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>No</has_dmc>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      The purpose of this study is to determine whether the irrigation or non-irrigation of a&#xD;
      simple laceration treated in the emergency department has an effect on the subsequent rate of&#xD;
      infection.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Background: Current guidelines recommend that lacerations be irrigated prior to their&#xD;
      closure. However, there is very little data in the literature suggesting that simple&#xD;
      laceration irrigation diminishes the subsequent rate of infection. Do patients benefit from&#xD;
      this practice that involves additional time and costs?&#xD;
&#xD;
      Hypothesis Testing &amp; Procedure: The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled&#xD;
      non-inferiority study is to test the hypothesis that the non-irrigation of lacerations does&#xD;
      not increase the rate of post-repair infection. Every adult patients presenting to the&#xD;
      Chicoutimi's Hospital Emergency Department with a simple laceration will be identify by the&#xD;
      triage nurse. Eligibility will subsequently be assessed by the emergency room physician&#xD;
      according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible and consenting patients will be&#xD;
      randomized to either the irrigation or non-irrigation arm. Post-repair rate of infection and&#xD;
      aesthetic appearance satisfaction will be reported.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Sample Size Determination: With the fairly liberal inclusion criteria, a 6% wound infection&#xD;
      rate in the irrigation group is expected, which corresponds to the upper limit of the 2 to 6%&#xD;
      range reported in the literature. Non-inferiority of non-irrigation would be accepted if the&#xD;
      rate of infection in this group does not exceed by 4% the usual infection rate of 6% with&#xD;
      irrigation, as previously stated. As such, for the study to be powered at 80% with a 95%&#xD;
      one-sided confidence interval, a population of 874 patients would be needed to conclude that&#xD;
      the non-irrigation is non-inferior when its infection rate does not exceed by more than 4%&#xD;
      the infection rate of the irrigation group. In addition, to account for an attrition rate of&#xD;
      approximately 10%, enrolment of 1000 patients is aimed.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis will be done by a certified statistician.&#xD;
      According to the distribution of our data, the Chi2 or the Fisher test will be used. A&#xD;
      preliminary analysis of our data will be done in the Spring 2017 to assess safety of our&#xD;
      intervention.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Plan for Missing Data: Patients that are lost at follow up will be considered as having had&#xD;
      no infection if no record of subsequent visits for wound infection is found after&#xD;
      consultation of the regional Electronic Medical Record.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Unknown status</overall_status>
  <last_known_status>Recruiting</last_known_status>
  <start_date type="Actual">January 2017</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Anticipated">March 2021</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Anticipated">January 2021</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>N/A</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <primary_purpose>Prevention</primary_purpose>
    <masking>Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)</masking>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Laceration infection following repair</measure>
    <time_frame>At 30 days post-repair</time_frame>
    <description>The primary outcome measured will be the 30-day post-repair infection rate in both study groups.&#xD;
At 30 days post-repair, patients will be contacted by phone by a trained nurse. A standardized form will be used to collect relevant information. Patients will be asked whether they consulted a physician for a wound infection, and if antibiotics or drainage was required. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment by the assessing physician.&#xD;
The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Laceration infections following repair</measure>
    <time_frame>At 5 to 10 days post-repair</time_frame>
    <description>The wounds of enrolled subjects will systematically be evaluated by a nurse between 5 to 10 days post-repair. A standardized form will be used by the nurse to identify criteria of possible wound infection (erythema, purulence, induration, fever, pain, fluctuance, dehiscence). A wound suspected to be infected by the presence of any of the previous criteria will immediately be evaluated by an emergency room physician to adjudicate on its infection status. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment based on the judgement of the physician.&#xD;
The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Aesthetic appearance of the laceration following repair</measure>
    <time_frame>At 30 days post-repair</time_frame>
    <description>The following question will be asked:&#xD;
&quot;Considering the appearance and localisation of the laceration before repair, considering that complete healing of the laceration could take up to a year duration, and considering that sun exposure needs to be avoided during the healing period, are you satisfied with the appearance your laceration has today?&quot; Yes or No.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Anticipated">1000</enrollment>
  <condition>Laceration - Injury</condition>
  <condition>Infection</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Irrigation</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
    <description>The subjects randomized to this group will have their simple lacerations irrigated with a normal saline solution.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>No Irrigation</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
    <description>The subjects randomized to this group will not have their simple lacerations directly irrigated with a normal saline solution.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>Irrigation</intervention_name>
    <description>A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair and perform the irrigation. Irrigation will be delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. The volume of normal saline used will be calculated as 60 millilitre per centimetre length of laceration for a maximum of 300 millilitre. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.</description>
    <arm_group_label>Irrigation</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Procedure</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>No irrigation</intervention_name>
    <description>A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair. The laceration will not directly be irrigated. In order to ensure blinding of the subjects, the surrounding of the wound will be irrigated with a total of 60 millilitre of normal saline delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. Care will be taken not to enter a margin of 5cm from the laceration edges. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.</description>
    <arm_group_label>No Irrigation</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  age 18 or older&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  repair within 18 hours from time of injury&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  repair done by the emergency room physician or trainee&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  clean and simple lacerations (clean edge with no gross contamination, as assessed by&#xD;
             the treating physician)&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  pregnant patients&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  involving tendons, muscles, fascias, articulations&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  located on the ear, nose or distal to metacarpophalangeal or metatarsophalangeal joint&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  immunosuppressed (neutropenia, chronic corticotherapy, HIV, immunosuppressive therapy&#xD;
             within 3 months)&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  bite wounds&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  lacerations with any loss of substance&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  lacerations with foreign body&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  complex lacerations (crush, stellate)&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  grossly contaminated&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>No</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)</last_name>
    <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    <affiliation>Université de Sherbrooke</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <overall_contact>
    <last_name>Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)</last_name>
    <phone>418-541-1000</phone>
    <email>julien.bouchard@usherbrooke.ca</email>
  </overall_contact>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CIUSSS Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, Hôpital de Chicoutimi</name>
      <address>
        <city>Chicoutimi</city>
        <state>Quebec</state>
        <zip>G7H5H6</zip>
        <country>Canada</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <status>Recruiting</status>
    <contact>
      <last_name>Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)</last_name>
      <phone>418-541-1000</phone>
      <email>julien.bouchard@usherbrooke.ca</email>
    </contact>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Antoine Herman-Lemelin, MD, CCFP(EM)</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Sébastien Lefebvre, MD, CCFP(EM)</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Catherine Desmeules, MD</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Jillian Follett, MD</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Alexandre Sauvé, MD</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Laurence Tremblay, MD</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>Canada</country>
  </location_countries>
  <reference>
    <citation>Dire DJ, Welsh AP. A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1990 Jun;19(6):704-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82484-9.</citation>
    <PMID>2344089</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Moscati R, Mayrose J, Fincher L, Jehle D. Comparison of normal saline with tap water for wound irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Jul;16(4):379-81. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90133-4.</citation>
    <PMID>9672456</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Moscati RM, Mayrose J, Reardon RF, Janicke DM, Jehle DV. A multicenter comparison of tap water versus sterile saline for wound irrigation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 May;14(5):404-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.01.007.</citation>
    <PMID>17456554</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Griffiths RD, Fernandez RS, Ussia CA. Is tap water a safe alternative to normal saline for wound irrigation in the community setting? J Wound Care. 2001 Nov;10(10):407-11. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.10.26149.</citation>
    <PMID>12964289</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Bansal BC, Wiebe RA, Perkins SD, Abramo TJ. Tap water for irrigation of lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;20(5):469-72. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.35501.</citation>
    <PMID>12216046</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Valente JH, Forti RJ, Freundlich LF, Zandieh SO, Crain EF. Wound irrigation in children: saline solution or tap water? Ann Emerg Med. 2003 May;41(5):609-16. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.137.</citation>
    <PMID>12712026</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Fernandez R, Griffiths R. Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD003861. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub3.</citation>
    <PMID>22336796</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Stevenson TR, Thacker JG, Rodeheaver GT, Bacchetta C, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Cleansing the traumatic wound by high pressure syringe irrigation. JACEP. 1976 Jan;5(1):17-21. doi: 10.1016/s0361-1124(76)80160-8.</citation>
    <PMID>933383</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hollander JE, Richman PB, Werblud M, Miller T, Huggler J, Singer AJ. Irrigation in facial and scalp lacerations: does it alter outcome? Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Jan;31(1):73-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70284-7.</citation>
    <PMID>9437345</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S. Comparison of wound care practices in pediatric and adult lacerations repaired in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998 Feb;14(1):15-8. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199802000-00004.</citation>
    <PMID>9516624</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Maharaj D, Sharma D, Ramdass M, Naraynsingh V. Closure of traumatic wounds without cleaning and suturing. Postgrad Med J. 2002 May;78(919):281-2. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.919.281.</citation>
    <PMID>12151570</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Webster DJ, Davis PW. Closure of abdominal wounds by adhesive strips: a clinical trial. Br Med J. 1975 Sep 20;3(5985):696-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5985.696.</citation>
    <PMID>1100188</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Rodeheaver GT, Pettry D, Thacker JG, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Wound cleansing by high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975 Sep;141(3):357-62.</citation>
    <PMID>808870</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Longmire AW, Broom LA, Burch J. Wound infection following high-pressure syringe and needle irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1987 Mar;5(2):179-81. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90121-5. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>3828025</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Pronchik D, Barber C, Rittenhouse S. Low- versus high-pressure irrigation techniques in Staphylococcus aureus-inoculated wounds. Am J Emerg Med. 1999 Mar;17(2):121-4. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(99)90041-4.</citation>
    <PMID>10102307</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Singer AJ, Hollander JE, Quinn JV. Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1142-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710163371607. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>9329936</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hollander JE, Singer AJ. Laceration management. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;34(3):356-67. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70131-9.</citation>
    <PMID>10459093</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Nicks BA, Ayello EA, Woo K, Nitzki-George D, Sibbald RG. Acute wound management: revisiting the approach to assessment, irrigation, and closure considerations. Int J Emerg Med. 2010 Aug 27;3(4):399-407. doi: 10.1007/s12245-010-0217-5.</citation>
    <PMID>21373312</PMID>
  </reference>
  <verification_date>January 2020</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>November 3, 2016</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>November 24, 2016</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Estimate">November 29, 2016</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>October 10, 2020</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>October 10, 2020</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">October 14, 2020</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
    <investigator_affiliation>Université de Sherbrooke</investigator_affiliation>
    <investigator_full_name>Julien Bouchard</investigator_full_name>
    <investigator_title>MD, CCFP(EM)</investigator_title>
  </responsible_party>
  <keyword>Irrigation</keyword>
  <condition_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Lacerations</mesh_term>
  </condition_browse>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>Undecided</sharing_ipd>
  </patient_data>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976480
org study id: 2016-025
nct id: NCT02976480
lead sponsor: 
collaborator: 
has dmc: No
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the irrigation or non-irrigation of a
      simple laceration treated in the emergency department has an effect on the subsequent rate of
      infection.
Background: Current guidelines recommend that lacerations be irrigated prior to their
      closure. However, there is very little data in the literature suggesting that simple
      laceration irrigation diminishes the subsequent rate of infection. Do patients benefit from
      this practice that involves additional time and costs?

      Hypothesis Testing & Procedure: The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled
      non-inferiority study is to test the hypothesis that the non-irrigation of lacerations does
      not increase the rate of post-repair infection. Every adult patients presenting to the
      Chicoutimi's Hospital Emergency Department with a simple laceration will be identify by the
      triage nurse. Eligibility will subsequently be assessed by the emergency room physician
      according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible and consenting patients will be
      randomized to either the irrigation or non-irrigation arm. Post-repair rate of infection and
      aesthetic appearance satisfaction will be reported.

      Sample Size Determination: With the fairly liberal inclusion criteria, a 6% wound infection
      rate in the irrigation group is expected, which corresponds to the upper limit of the 2 to 6%
      range reported in the literature. Non-inferiority of non-irrigation would be accepted if the
      rate of infection in this group does not exceed by 4% the usual infection rate of 6% with
      irrigation, as previously stated. As such, for the study to be powered at 80% with a 95%
      one-sided confidence interval, a population of 874 patients would be needed to conclude that
      the non-irrigation is non-inferior when its infection rate does not exceed by more than 4%
      the infection rate of the irrigation group. In addition, to account for an attrition rate of
      approximately 10%, enrolment of 1000 patients is aimed.

      Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis will be done by a certified statistician.
      According to the distribution of our data, the Chi2 or the Fisher test will be used. A
      preliminary analysis of our data will be done in the Spring 2017 to assess safety of our
      intervention.

      Plan for Missing Data: Patients that are lost at follow up will be considered as having had
      no infection if no record of subsequent visits for wound infection is found after
      consultation of the regional Electronic Medical Record.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
primary purpose: Prevention
masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
measure: Laceration infection following repair
time frame: At 30 days post-repair
description: The primary outcome measured will be the 30-day post-repair infection rate in both study groups.
At 30 days post-repair, patients will be contacted by phone by a trained nurse. A standardized form will be used to collect relevant information. Patients will be asked whether they consulted a physician for a wound infection, and if antibiotics or drainage was required. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment by the assessing physician.
The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.
measure: Laceration infections following repair
time frame: At 5 to 10 days post-repair
description: The wounds of enrolled subjects will systematically be evaluated by a nurse between 5 to 10 days post-repair. A standardized form will be used by the nurse to identify criteria of possible wound infection (erythema, purulence, induration, fever, pain, fluctuance, dehiscence). A wound suspected to be infected by the presence of any of the previous criteria will immediately be evaluated by an emergency room physician to adjudicate on its infection status. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment based on the judgement of the physician.
The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.
measure: Aesthetic appearance of the laceration following repair
time frame: At 30 days post-repair
description: The following question will be asked:
"Considering the appearance and localisation of the laceration before repair, considering that complete healing of the laceration could take up to a year duration, and considering that sun exposure needs to be avoided during the healing period, are you satisfied with the appearance your laceration has today?" Yes or No.
arm group label: Irrigation
arm group type: Active Comparator
description: The subjects randomized to this group will have their simple lacerations irrigated with a normal saline solution.
arm group label: No Irrigation
arm group type: Experimental
description: The subjects randomized to this group will not have their simple lacerations directly irrigated with a normal saline solution.
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: Irrigation
description: A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair and perform the irrigation. Irrigation will be delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. The volume of normal saline used will be calculated as 60 millilitre per centimetre length of laceration for a maximum of 300 millilitre. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.
arm group label: Irrigation
intervention type: Procedure
intervention name: No irrigation
description: A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair. The laceration will not directly be irrigated. In order to ensure blinding of the subjects, the surrounding of the wound will be irrigated with a total of 60 millilitre of normal saline delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. Care will be taken not to enter a margin of 5cm from the laceration edges. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.
arm group label: No Irrigation
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: No
last name: Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)
role: Principal Investigator
affiliation: Université de Sherbrooke
last name: Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)
phone: 418-541-1000
email: julien.bouchard@usherbrooke.ca
facility: 
status: Recruiting
contact: 
investigator: 
investigator: 
investigator: 
investigator: 
investigator: 
investigator: 
country: Canada
citation: Dire DJ, Welsh AP. A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1990 Jun;19(6):704-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82484-9.
PMID: 2344089
citation: Moscati R, Mayrose J, Fincher L, Jehle D. Comparison of normal saline with tap water for wound irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Jul;16(4):379-81. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90133-4.
PMID: 9672456
citation: Moscati RM, Mayrose J, Reardon RF, Janicke DM, Jehle DV. A multicenter comparison of tap water versus sterile saline for wound irrigation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 May;14(5):404-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.01.007.
PMID: 17456554
citation: Griffiths RD, Fernandez RS, Ussia CA. Is tap water a safe alternative to normal saline for wound irrigation in the community setting? J Wound Care. 2001 Nov;10(10):407-11. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.10.26149.
PMID: 12964289
citation: Bansal BC, Wiebe RA, Perkins SD, Abramo TJ. Tap water for irrigation of lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;20(5):469-72. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.35501.
PMID: 12216046
citation: Valente JH, Forti RJ, Freundlich LF, Zandieh SO, Crain EF. Wound irrigation in children: saline solution or tap water? Ann Emerg Med. 2003 May;41(5):609-16. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.137.
PMID: 12712026
citation: Fernandez R, Griffiths R. Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD003861. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub3.
PMID: 22336796
citation: Stevenson TR, Thacker JG, Rodeheaver GT, Bacchetta C, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Cleansing the traumatic wound by high pressure syringe irrigation. JACEP. 1976 Jan;5(1):17-21. doi: 10.1016/s0361-1124(76)80160-8.
PMID: 933383
citation: Hollander JE, Richman PB, Werblud M, Miller T, Huggler J, Singer AJ. Irrigation in facial and scalp lacerations: does it alter outcome? Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Jan;31(1):73-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70284-7.
PMID: 9437345
citation: Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S. Comparison of wound care practices in pediatric and adult lacerations repaired in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998 Feb;14(1):15-8. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199802000-00004.
PMID: 9516624
citation: Maharaj D, Sharma D, Ramdass M, Naraynsingh V. Closure of traumatic wounds without cleaning and suturing. Postgrad Med J. 2002 May;78(919):281-2. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.919.281.
PMID: 12151570
citation: Webster DJ, Davis PW. Closure of abdominal wounds by adhesive strips: a clinical trial. Br Med J. 1975 Sep 20;3(5985):696-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5985.696.
PMID: 1100188
citation: Rodeheaver GT, Pettry D, Thacker JG, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Wound cleansing by high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975 Sep;141(3):357-62.
PMID: 808870
citation: Longmire AW, Broom LA, Burch J. Wound infection following high-pressure syringe and needle irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1987 Mar;5(2):179-81. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90121-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 3828025
citation: Pronchik D, Barber C, Rittenhouse S. Low- versus high-pressure irrigation techniques in Staphylococcus aureus-inoculated wounds. Am J Emerg Med. 1999 Mar;17(2):121-4. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(99)90041-4.
PMID: 10102307
citation: Singer AJ, Hollander JE, Quinn JV. Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1142-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710163371607. No abstract available.
PMID: 9329936
citation: Hollander JE, Singer AJ. Laceration management. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;34(3):356-67. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70131-9.
PMID: 10459093
citation: Nicks BA, Ayello EA, Woo K, Nitzki-George D, Sibbald RG. Acute wound management: revisiting the approach to assessment, irrigation, and closure considerations. Int J Emerg Med. 2010 Aug 27;3(4):399-407. doi: 10.1007/s12245-010-0217-5.
PMID: 21373312
responsible party type: Principal Investigator
investigator affiliation: Université de Sherbrooke
investigator full name: Julien Bouchard
investigator title: MD, CCFP(EM)
mesh term: Lacerations
sharing ipd: Undecided