Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Meta-Analysis Shows No SSI Difference Between Chlorhexidine and Povidone Iodine for Vaginal Antisepsis

Meta-Analysis Shows No SSI Difference Between Chlorhexidine and Povidone Iodine for Vaginal…
Photo by Terry Vlisidis / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider that chlorhexidine gluconate carries a higher risk for UTIs compared to povidone iodine.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined vaginal antisepsis practices in patients undergoing major gynecologic operations. The study included 9538 patients and compared chlorhexidine gluconate with povidone iodine. The primary outcome assessed was the rate of surgical site infections. Secondary outcomes included urinary tract infections and vaginal irritation.

The analysis found no statistically significant difference in surgical site infections between the two agents. The relative risk was 1.20 with a 95% CI of 0.92-1.57 based on data from 9538 patients. Consequently, the form of vaginal antisepsis can be used for SSI prevention according to current guidelines supported by these findings.

However, urinary tract infections showed a significantly higher risk for chlorhexidine gluconate. The relative risk was 1.48 with a 95% CI of 1.03-2.14 in a subset of 6061 patients. Vaginal irritation was noted as an adverse event. The authors note that further randomized studies are needed to support findings regarding UTIs.

Practice relevance is tempered by the need for additional research on infection risks. The certainty of the evidence regarding urinary tract infections remains uncertain. Clinicians should weigh the lack of SSI benefit against the potential increase in UTIs when selecting an agent.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 9,538
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) of post-surgical outcomes, comparing chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) versus povidone iodine (PI) for vaginal antisepsis of major gynecologic procedures. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched between 1986 and December 2023, for studies comparing CHG with PI for vaginal antisepsis of major gynecologic operations. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing CHG to PI for vaginal antisepsis of major gynecologic operations. The primary outcome was surgical site infections (SSIs) and the secondary outcome was urinary tract infections (UTIs) and vaginal irritation. METHODS: Summary estimates were calculated by fixed effects models when I2 [≤] 25% and by random effects models when I2 > 25%. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42022378101). RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 9538 patients were included, 4300 (45%) of whom were allocated to CHG and 5238 (55%) to PI. No statistically significant difference in SSI incidence was found for vaginal antisepsis with CHG versus PI in pooled analyses (n= 9538 patients; RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92-1.57; I2 =0%). In contrast, a significantly higher risk of UTIs was observed for vaginal antisepsis with CHG than with PI (n=6061 patients; RR 1.48 95% CI 1.03-2.14; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: In our SRMA, there were no significant differences in SSI risk when either CHG or PI was utilized for antiseptic vaginal preparation. Interestingly, vaginal antisepsis with PI was associated with a lower incidence of post-operative UTIs following major gynecologic surgery. Our findings support current guidelines that form of vaginal antisepsis can be used for SSI prevention. They also suggest that PI may result in fewer postoperative UTIs but further randomized studies are needed to support these findings. Key words: surgical site infection, surgical wound infection, urinary tract infection, urogynecologic surgery, Chlorhexidine, Povidone Iodine, surgical antiseptic,
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.