You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
The effect of incisional plastic drapes and redisinfection of operation site on wound infection following caesarean section.
Abstract 1:
In a randomized prospective multicentre study of post-caesarean wound infection among 1,340 women in eight hospitals, the effect of redisinfection of the skin around the incision before skin closure and the effect of adhesive skin drapes were investigated. The overall rate of wound infection with pus was 5.0% (range 3.5-8.9%). The study showed a reduction in postoperative wound infection associated with redisinfection (P = 5.5%), while no benefit from adhesive plastic drapes could be demonstrated.


Title 2:
Skin preparation methods before cesarean section. A comparative study.
Abstract 2:
Preoperative skin preparation before cesarean section using a one-minute alcohol wash followed by application of an iodophor-impregnated adhesive film was evaluated in a prospective, randomized, controlled study of 79 patients. The iodophor film was as effective as the five-minute iodophor scrub followed by an iodophor wash, as determined by a reduction in skin bacterial counts. Clinical infectious morbidity was no different between the treatment and control groups, although the study was too small to draw statistically significant conclusions in this respect. This study demonstrated the antimicrobial effectiveness of a new, more rapid method of pre-operative skin preparation before cesarean section as compared to a longer, traditional method. This new, rapid method offers advantages for many patients undergoing abdominal delivery.


Title 3:
Do plastic adhesive drapes prevent post caesarean wound infection?
Abstract 3:
We conducted a prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial at a regional referral centre for the Eastern Cape area, (Livingstone Hospital) to determine whether the use of plastic adhesive drapes intraoperatively would prevent Post Caesarean Section Wound Infection. A total of 620 patients undergoing Caesarean section (CS) were enrolled for randomization in the trial. Fifteen patients were excluded, while 305 received drapes (test group) and 300 did not (control group). Two patients in the control group were subsequently excluded. The primary outcome measure was the presence of Post Caesarean Wound Infection. A secondary outcome measure was the number of days in hospital post operation. The study and control groups were comparable at entry. Results show that 34 patients in the test group (N= 305) developed wound sepsis (11.1%) compared with 30 in the control group (N= 298) (10.1%) (difference not significant; Fisher's exact test 0.6933). Average days spent in hospital postoperatively were similar for both test (infected cases: mean 10.56 SD 3.84; non-infected cases: mean 5.21 SD 1.3) and control groups (infected cases: mean 10.18 SD 3.81; non-infected cases: mean 5.2 SD 0.93) (NS). We concluded that the use of plastic adhesive skin drapes did not avert PCWS or decrease the length of post operative stay in hospital for septic cases.
                Copyright 2001 The Hospital Infection Society.


Title 4:
Preoperative skin preparation and intraoperative pelvic irrigation: impact on post-cesarean endometritis and wound infection.
Abstract 4:
To determine the impact of two skin preparation methods and two techniques of pelvic irrigation on the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis and wound infection in an indigent patient population.
                A randomized study was performed in 100 cesarean patients. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups, involving either standard skin preparation (povidone-iodine [7.5%] scrub followed by povidone-iodine [10%] solution) or special skin preparation (5-minute scrub with parachlorometaxylenol followed by povidone scrub and solution), and either normal saline or antibiotic (cefazolin sodium, 1 g in 500 mL normal saline) irrigation of the pelvis and subcutaneous tissue at uterine and fascial closure. Four groups of patients were formed: standard skin preparation plus normal saline irrigation, standard preparation plus antibiotic irrigation, special preparation plus normal saline irrigation, and special preparation plus antibiotic irrigation.
                Endometritis occurred significantly more often in the combined groups that did not include antibiotic irrigation than in the combined groups involving antibiotic irrigation (P < .001). In contrast, comparison of skin preparation methods between povidone-iodine alone versus preparation including parachlorometaxylenol indicated no significant difference (P = .22).
                Skin preparation with an antibacterial scrub in addition to standard povidone-iodine scrub and solution does not appear to play as significant a role in the reduction of post-cesarean endometritis or wound infection as does intraoperative pelvic irrigation with antibiotic solution.
Little evidence is available from the included randomised controlled trials to evaluate different agent forms, concentrations and methods of skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most efficient for preventing postcaesarean wound and surgical site infection. There is a need for high-quality, properly designed randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes in this field. High priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), the timing and duration of applying the antiseptic (especially previous night versus day of surgery, and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing and draping).