{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012903225806451613, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.313953488372093, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Limb Wounding and Antisepsis

Extremity injury and contamination as consequence are features of high-energy wounding. A leading cause of disability and the commonest cause of late complications, prevention of wound infection determines the ultimate outcome in these populations. Multiple variables influence the development of infection, one of which is the dressing used on the wound. Antiseptic-soaked gauze dressings feature in the early management of limb trauma despite a lack of evidence to support this. Iodine and chlorhexidine are ubiquitous in other aspects of health care however, and a plethora of studies detail their role in skin antisepsis, the recommendations from which are often anecdotally applied to acute wounding. To contextualize the role for antiseptic dressing use in acute, significant limb injury this review explores the evidence for the use of chlorhexidine and iodine in skin antisepsis. The paucity of experimental data available for antiseptic use in early wound management and the need for further research to address this evidence void is highlighted.