This is a plain-English translation of the academic paper above, prepared for patients, referring clinicians, and other non-specialist readers. It preserves the structure of the original paper while removing technical jargon. For the full clinical paper, follow the PubMed or DOI links.
Background
Whether using dilute povidone-iodine (Betadine) or similar antiseptic to irrigate the surgical wound during ankle replacement and other foot/ankle operations actually reduces the risk of post-operative infection.
Rationale
Antiseptic irrigation is a routine practice in many operating theatres. It feels intuitively useful — you’re killing bacteria right at the time the wound is open. But intuition isn’t evidence, and antiseptic irrigation does have a small theoretical risk of harming healing tissue.
What did we conclude
Specifically for total ankle replacement, there is a lack of evidence either way. The practice neither has strong support nor strong evidence against it. For other foot and ankle procedures, the evidence is similarly thin. The honest answer is: surgeons can use it, or not, without violating the evidence in either direction.
Implications
This is largely a surgeon-side decision. If you ask why your surgeon does or doesn’t use antiseptic irrigation, the honest answer is that the practice is based on tradition and reasonable inference, not on conclusive trials.
Source: Englund K, Heidari N. Is There a Role for the Use of Dilute Povidone-Iodine (Betadine) Irrigation or Other Antiseptic Irrigation Solutions During Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA) or Other Foot and Ankle Procedures?. Foot & Ankle International 2019. PMID: 31322948.
Read original on PubMed → ← Back to research library