Comparison between a novel tap water wound irrigation device with sterile saline device in an open traumatic wound animal model

Abstract

Study objective

Open traumatic wounds present to US emergency departments at a rate of approximately 12 million per year. Tap water wound irrigation usage has not been adopted by providers thus negating a potential cost saving of approximately US$65,600,000 per year when compared to saline irrigation. A novel tap water wound irrigation device can reduce bacterial counts in rats inoculated with MRSA as effectively as a commonly used sterile saline wound irrigation system.

Methods

Two groups of six Sprague–Dawley rats were used for this study. Two 3 cm incisions were made into the dorsum of each Sprague–Dawley rat and each incision was inoculated with 100 µl of MRSA. One wound served as the control, the other wound was either irrigated with the sterile saline wound irrigation system or a novel tap water wound irrigation device. The wounds were homogenized, plated, and bacterial colonies were enumerated to determine the final concentration of bacteria in each wound.

Results

There was no significant statistical difference in the reduction of MRSA in wounds treated with the sterile saline system relative to wounds treated with tap water (one-way ANOVA with post hoc Dunnet's test).

Conclusion

The novel tap water wound irrigation device is as effective as the sterile saline wound irrigation device at reducing bacterial counts in a rat laceration model when compared to non-irrigated controls. Adopting the use of a convenient, effective, and inexpensive wound irrigation system using tap water could help save the health care system millions of dollars in direct costs, shipping cost, and would not be affected by saline shortages.