Comparison of Clinical Outcomes According to Preoperative Skin Preparation in Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture: A 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial
In brief
CHG scrub then povidone-iodine paint reduces hip fracture SSI to 5.6%
In a randomized trial of 108 hip-fracture patients, using chlorhexidine for the surgical scrub and povidone-iodine for the final paint cut superficial surgical-site infection to 5.6%, compared with 30.6% when povidone-iodine was used for both steps. The finding suggests that antiseptic order matters, but larger studies are needed to confirm its impact on routine practice.
- Journal
- Clinics in orthopedic surgery (Q1)
- Published
- 15 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Chanhee Park, Seung-Cheol Choi, Seong Gyu Kim, Myung-Rae Cho, Suk-Kyoon Song
- PMID
- 42558178
- DOI
- 10.4055/cios26054
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Microbiology (medical) (top studies of the week, 9 August 2026): Sequence of antiseptic application significantly influenced microbiological outcomes
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hip fractures undergoing arthroplasty are typically old and frail, and superficial surgical site infections (SSIs) can delay mobilization and prolong hospitalization. Preoperative skin antisepsis is a low-cost, universally used intervention. However, clinical practice varies, and evidence from elective arthroplasty may not fully generalize to urgent hip fracture surgery. Sequential dual-antiseptic protocols combining povidone-iodine (PVI) and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) are increasingly adopted; however, the optimal order for "scrub" versus "paint" remains unclear. We compared the prophylactic efficacy of 3 skin preparation protocols using different sequences of PVI and CHG. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 108 patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for hip fracture were randomly allocated to 3 groups based on the antiseptic agents used for the mechanical "scrub" and final "paint" steps: group 1 (PVI scrub/PVI paint), group 2 (PVI scrub/CHG paint), and group 3 (CHG scrub/PVI paint). The primary outcome was the rate of positive skin culture results immediately before draping and pathogen identification results. The secondary outcome was the incidence of superficial SSI. RESULTS: Post-preparation culture positivity was significantly lower in the CHG-containing groups (group 2 and group 3: 5.6% each) than in the PVI-only group (group 1: 27.8%; p = 0.005). The incidence of superficial SSI differed significantly among the 3 protocols (p = 0.015). The highest superficial SSI rate was observed in group 1 (30.6%), followed by group 2 (13.9%). Group 3 had the lowest superficial SSI rate (5.6%). In multivariable logistic regression adjusted for confounders, group 1 was associated with a significantly higher risk of SSI than group 3 (adjusted odds ratio, 3.89; 95% CI, 1.22-12.37; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The sequence of antiseptic application significantly influenced microbiological outcomes, with CHG-containing protocols demonstrating lower post-preparation culture positivity. A protocol using a CHG scrub followed by PVI paint provided the most effective bacterial suppression. Differences in superficial SSI rates were also observed and may reflect the impact of improved microbiological control. Optimizing the order of antiseptic administration may contribute to improved infection prevention in this high-risk population.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.