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?

Patricia M. Mertz; William H. Eaglstein, MD
Department of Dermatology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine RC 512 Scaife Hall Pittsburgh, PA 15261

Arch Dermatol. 1984;120(11):1419.

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

In Reply.—

Povidone-iodine solution is an effective "antiseptic" agent on normal skin. However, it is not a very effective antiseptic agent in full-thickness wounds.¹ The usual explanation given for povidone-iodine solution's ineffectiveness in full-thickness wounds is that wounds, unlike normal skin, contain wound fluids. The wound's fluid proteins bind iodine, the active agent in povidone-iodine solution, and thereby reduce the solution's effectiveness.² An alternative explanation for the lack of effect in full-thickness wounds might be that the wound fluids provide the bacteria a "protective coating."³ The latter possibility has been proposed to explain the ability of Pseudomonas cepacia to survive in povidone-iodine solution.

Regardless of the mechanisms of the inactivity of povidone-iodine in deep wounds, our findings in superficial wounds are not surprising. As Dr Leyden points out, we used only one application of a small volume of povidone-iodine into a shallow wound containing large numbers of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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