AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Dr. Bruce Flamm's recent clinical pearl on the use of the Waterpik dental device for wound irrigation is without luster ("Gynecology Clinic," Clinical Pearls, May 15, 2004, p. 27).
First, it would seem difficult, after repeated use, to maintain sterility in the reservoir, pump, coiled tubing, and nozzle that comprise the Waterpik apparatus.
Second, and more important, this pearl promulgates the mistaken idea that povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide are acceptable irrigating agents for wounds. They are not.
Multiple studies have shown that these agents are in fact cytotoxic, that they destroy fibroblasts, and that they delay wound healing. They may have utility in the debridement of contaminated primary lacerations, but they have no place in the care of chronic wounds.
Jack Edward Wall, M.D.
Duluth, Minn.
Dr. Flamm replies: