Introduction: PI has been shown to be effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and to be cytotoxic to a variety of cell types. Such findings led to the widespread belief that PI interferes with wound healing.
Objective: This article reviews laboratory studies, animal wound studies, and clinical studies that examine the efficacy and safety of iodine-based wound products in wound healing.
Methods: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases without time restrictions, and 62 articles were selected for complete evaluation. Fourteen RCTs and 5 comparative studies that evaluated PI and 15 RCTs that evaluated CI were included.
Results: In 63% (n = 12) of the PI studies, there was no difference between PI and controls and in 5% (n = 1) PI performed significantly better than the comparator. In 31% (n = 6), outcomes were better with controls than with PI. In the RCTs on CI, 64% (n = 9) of the studies found no difference between CI and controls. Thirty-five percent (n = 5) showed significantly positive influence of CI compared with controls.
Conclusions: Both CI and PI appear to be safe, with no evidence that these products impede wound healing, are associated with more infections, or require more amputations compared with other modalities. PI can effectively be used for short periods of time, and CI is an effective wound care modality for chronic wounds.