ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT02976480ION-SiLacUpdated Feb 25, 2025

The Irrigation or No Irrigation in Simple Lacerations Trials

An interventional study of Irrigation and No irrigation in Laceration - Injury and Infection, sponsored by Université de Sherbrooke. Recruiting at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-02-25.

Sponsored by Université de Sherbrooke · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Feb 2025, 1 year 9 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Jan 2017; still recruiting 9 years 10 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,000
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the irrigation or non-irrigation of a simple laceration treated in the emergency department has an effect on the subsequent rate of infection.

Read the detailed description

Background: Current guidelines recommend that lacerations be irrigated prior to their closure. However, there is very little data in the literature suggesting that simple laceration irrigation diminishes the subsequent rate of infection. Do patients benefit from this practice that involves additional time and costs?

Hypothesis Testing \& Procedure: The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled non-inferiority study is to test the hypothesis that the non-irrigation of lacerations does not increase the rate of post-repair infection. Every adult patients presenting to the Chicoutimi's Hospital Emergency Department with a simple laceration will be identify by the triage nurse. Eligibility will subsequently be assessed by the emergency room physician according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible and consenting patients will be randomized to either the irrigation or non-irrigation arm. Post-repair rate of infection and aesthetic appearance satisfaction will be reported.

Sample Size Determination: With the fairly liberal inclusion criteria, a 6% wound infection rate in the irrigation group is expected, which corresponds to the upper limit of the 2 to 6% range reported in the literature. Non-inferiority of non-irrigation would be accepted if the rate of infection in this group does not exceed by 4% the usual infection rate of 6% with irrigation, as previously stated. As such, for the study to be powered at 80% with a 95% one-sided confidence interval, a population of 874 patients would be needed to conclude that the non-irrigation is non-inferior when its infection rate does not exceed by more than 4% the infection rate of the irrigation group. In addition, to account for an attrition rate of approximately 10%, enrolment of 1000 patients is aimed.

Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis will be done by a certified statistician. According to the distribution of our data, the Chi2 or the Fisher test will be used. A preliminary analysis of our data will be done in the Spring 2017 to assess safety of our intervention.

Plan for Missing Data: Patients that are lost at follow up will be considered as having had no infection if no record of subsequent visits for wound infection is found after consultation of the regional Electronic Medical Record.

02

Conditions studied

  • Laceration - Injury
  • Infection

Keywords

  • Irrigation
03

In context

Lacerations

174 studies on the registry are indexed under Lacerations; 43 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 1,000 is above the median of 65 across 128 interventional studies indexed under Lacerations.

Browse Lacerations studies →

Lead sponsor

Université de Sherbrooke is the lead sponsor of 295 studies on the registry; 65 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • age 18 or older
  • repair within 18 hours from time of injury
  • repair done by the emergency room physician or trainee
  • clean and simple lacerations (clean edge with no gross contamination, as assessed by the treating physician)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • pregnant patients
  • involving tendons, muscles, fascias, articulations
  • located on the ear, nose or distal to metacarpophalangeal or metatarsophalangeal joint
  • (neutropenia, chronic corticotherapy, , immunosuppressive therapy within 3 months)
  • bite wounds
  • lacerations with any loss of substance
  • lacerations with foreign body
  • complex lacerations (crush, stellate)
  • grossly contaminated
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

HIV

The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.

Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
1,000 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Irrigation

    The subjects randomized to this group will have their simple lacerations irrigated with a normal saline solution.

    Procedure: Irrigation

  • Experimental
    No Irrigation

    The subjects randomized to this group will not have their simple lacerations directly irrigated with a normal saline solution.

    Procedure: No irrigation

Interventions

  • ProcedureIrrigation

    A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair and perform the irrigation. Irrigation will be delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. The volume of normal saline used will be calculated as 60 millilitre per centimetre length of laceration for a maximum of 300 millilitre. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.

  • ProcedureNo irrigation

    A designated unblinded medical team member (nurse, emergency room physician or resident/trainee uninvolved in that particular patient's care) will prepare the laceration for repair. The laceration will not directly be irrigated. In order to ensure blinding of the subjects, the surrounding of the wound will be irrigated with a total of 60 millilitre of normal saline delivered through a 20 Gauge 1 inch long catheter mounted on a 60 millilitre syringe. Care will be taken not to enter a margin of 5cm from the laceration edges. Once completed, the treating physician will enter the room and proceed to the laceration closure with the method and equipment of his choice. Both the patient (through eye covering) and the treating physician will remain blinded to the intervention.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Laceration infection following repair

    The primary outcome measured will be the 30-day post-repair infection rate in both study groups. At 30 days post-repair, patients will be contacted by phone by a trained nurse. A standardized form will be used to collect relevant information. Patients will be asked whether they consulted a physician for a wound infection, and if antibiotics or drainage was required. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment by the assessing physician. The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.

    Time frame: At 30 days post-repair

Secondary outcomes

  1. Laceration infections following repair

    The wounds of enrolled subjects will systematically be evaluated by a nurse between 5 to 10 days post-repair. A standardized form will be used by the nurse to identify criteria of possible wound infection (erythema, purulence, induration, fever, pain, fluctuance, dehiscence). A wound suspected to be infected by the presence of any of the previous criteria will immediately be evaluated by an emergency room physician to adjudicate on its infection status. An infected wound is defined as one requiring either drainage or antibiotic treatment based on the judgement of the physician. The regional Medical Electronic Record will be reviewed for patients that were lost at follow up. Records of subsequent visits for wound infection will be looked for at 30 days post-repair.

    Time frame: At 5 to 10 days post-repair

  2. Aesthetic appearance of the laceration following repair

    The following question will be asked: "Considering the appearance and localisation of the laceration before repair, considering that complete healing of the laceration could take up to a year duration, and considering that sun exposure needs to be avoided during the healing period, are you satisfied with the appearance your laceration has today?" Yes or No.

    Time frame: At 30 days post-repair

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • CIUSSS Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, Hôpital de Chicoutimi
    Chicoutimi, Quebec G7H5H6, Canada
    Recruiting
    • Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM) · Contactjulien.bouchard@usherbrooke.ca · 418-541-1000
    • Antoine Herman-Lemelin, MD, CCFP(EM) · Contact
    • Sébastien Lefebvre, MD, CCFP(EM) · Contact
    • Catherine Desmeules, MD · Contact
    • Jillian Follett, MD · Contact
    • Alexandre Sauvé, MD · Contact
    • Laurence Tremblay, MD · Contact
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Dire DJ, Welsh AP. A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1990 Jun;19(6):704-8. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82484-9. PubMed 2344089 ↗
  • Moscati R, Mayrose J, Fincher L, Jehle D. Comparison of normal saline with tap water for wound irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Jul;16(4):379-81. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90133-4. PubMed 9672456 ↗
  • Moscati RM, Mayrose J, Reardon RF, Janicke DM, Jehle DV. A multicenter comparison of tap water versus sterile saline for wound irrigation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 May;14(5):404-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.01.007. PubMed 17456554 ↗
  • Griffiths RD, Fernandez RS, Ussia CA. Is tap water a safe alternative to normal saline for wound irrigation in the community setting? J Wound Care. 2001 Nov;10(10):407-11. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.10.26149. PubMed 12964289 ↗
  • Bansal BC, Wiebe RA, Perkins SD, Abramo TJ. Tap water for irrigation of lacerations. Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;20(5):469-72. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.35501. PubMed 12216046 ↗
  • Valente JH, Forti RJ, Freundlich LF, Zandieh SO, Crain EF. Wound irrigation in children: saline solution or tap water? Ann Emerg Med. 2003 May;41(5):609-16. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.137. PubMed 12712026 ↗
  • Fernandez R, Griffiths R. Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD003861. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub3. PubMed 22336796 ↗
  • Stevenson TR, Thacker JG, Rodeheaver GT, Bacchetta C, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Cleansing the traumatic wound by high pressure syringe irrigation. JACEP. 1976 Jan;5(1):17-21. doi: 10.1016/s0361-1124(76)80160-8. PubMed 933383 ↗
  • Hollander JE, Richman PB, Werblud M, Miller T, Huggler J, Singer AJ. Irrigation in facial and scalp lacerations: does it alter outcome? Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Jan;31(1):73-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70284-7. PubMed 9437345 ↗
  • Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S. Comparison of wound care practices in pediatric and adult lacerations repaired in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998 Feb;14(1):15-8. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199802000-00004. PubMed 9516624 ↗
  • Maharaj D, Sharma D, Ramdass M, Naraynsingh V. Closure of traumatic wounds without cleaning and suturing. Postgrad Med J. 2002 May;78(919):281-2. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.919.281. PubMed 12151570 ↗
  • Webster DJ, Davis PW. Closure of abdominal wounds by adhesive strips: a clinical trial. Br Med J. 1975 Sep 20;3(5985):696-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5985.696. PubMed 1100188 ↗
  • Rodeheaver GT, Pettry D, Thacker JG, Edgerton MT, Edlich RF. Wound cleansing by high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975 Sep;141(3):357-62. PubMed 808870 ↗
  • Longmire AW, Broom LA, Burch J. Wound infection following high-pressure syringe and needle irrigation. Am J Emerg Med. 1987 Mar;5(2):179-81. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90121-5. No abstract available. PubMed 3828025 ↗
  • Pronchik D, Barber C, Rittenhouse S. Low- versus high-pressure irrigation techniques in Staphylococcus aureus-inoculated wounds. Am J Emerg Med. 1999 Mar;17(2):121-4. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(99)90041-4. PubMed 10102307 ↗
  • Singer AJ, Hollander JE, Quinn JV. Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1142-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710163371607. No abstract available. PubMed 9329936 ↗
  • Hollander JE, Singer AJ. Laceration management. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;34(3):356-67. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70131-9. PubMed 10459093 ↗
  • Nicks BA, Ayello EA, Woo K, Nitzki-George D, Sibbald RG. Acute wound management: revisiting the approach to assessment, irrigation, and closure considerations. Int J Emerg Med. 2010 Aug 27;3(4):399-407. doi: 10.1007/s12245-010-0217-5. PubMed 21373312 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Clinical study report

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2017 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Feb 2025, 97 months after the start.

Of 46 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Lacerations, half reached primary completion within 19 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 72. This study's planned 97 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 50 studies reached it within 19 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 72.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 3, 2016
First posted
Nov 29, 2016
StartActual
Jan 2017
Primary completionEst.
Feb 2025
CompletionEst.
Feb 22, 2025
Last update
Feb 25, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 25, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02976480
Collaborators
Agence de la Sante et des Services Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
Responsible party
Julien Bouchard (MD, CCFP(EM), Université de Sherbrooke) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 29, 2016
Start date
Jan 2017
Primary completion
Feb 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Feb 22, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Feb 25, 2025

Study contacts

Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)
Contact
julien.bouchard@usherbrooke.ca
418-541-1000
Julien Bouchard, MD, CCFP(EM)
principal investigator · Université de Sherbrooke

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion