Author Topic: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?  (Read 7132 times)

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Is there a risk to using iodine as an external antiseptic?  Is it just the staining that happens and now we have more alternatives?  Growing up in the 50s-70s we used stuff like Iodex ointment all the time for cuts, scrapes, etc.  I use Betadine as a wash before bandaging bad cuts and such.  But doctors today seem to not like to use this stuff.

Just recently my adult daughter cut herself deep on a finger with a kitchen knife.  The PA at urgent care stitched it up and seemed to just use alcohol wipes for cleaning the area.  She was told NOT to use antibiotic ointment, just a dry bandage after cleaning with soap and water.  After a week it has turned very red (no line yet) and oozing pus.  Event he holes from the stitches are pus filled.  She had to go back in today to get oral antibiotics.  The problem I think is our tap water probably is not sterile and if that was the last thing contacting the would could have been the source of infection.  Soapy water is probably good, but should not rinse with plain tap water.

I did a similar bad finger cut a couple of years ago and basically rinsed it out with water when the bleeding subsided with a pressure bandage.  Then sloshed Betadine (povidone iodine) all over it, applied stere-strips and bandaged it.  When I changed bandages I applied neosporin which I had because I rarely see Iodex on the shelf any more.  I never had any sign of infection.

So are iodine based antiseptics not favored any more by medical professionals?  If so, why?  I am thinking to search and get some Iodex because it was always so effective. Nothing survives a bath in iodine!  Am I wrong?

ETA:  I think a good antiseptic method is crucial for preps as well as every day life.  In a long term emergency oral antibiotics will be harder to come by and prevention of infections from wounds will be extremely important.  I don't want to have to bring out the garden loppers because a cut finger goes feral.  Infections could be deadly if not prevented from the start and throughout the healing.

Offline never_retreat

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: 34
  • I am the Great Cornholio I need TP for my bunghole
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2017, 06:54:17 PM »
I read somewhere that iodine is very harsh on the cellular material. Same with alcohol.
I only use soap and water on cuts.
The only time I actually got stitches doctors only rinsed with saline.

Offline fritz_monroe

  • The Defenestrator
  • Administrator
  • Survival Veteran
  • *******
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 150
    • The Homestead Fritz
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2017, 07:30:54 PM »
I've also heard that iodine is hard on the cells of your wound.  But I never saw anything in print.

I wash the wound with soap and water.  I'll often use alcohol to clean around the wound, not on it.  But I'm a firm believer in antibiotic ointment for the first couple of days.  It seems to allow faster healing.

Offline FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 6083
  • Karma: 771
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2017, 07:38:55 PM »
Betadine is still used on the skin surface for surgical prep, but not so much in the wound itself due to increased concern over the toxic effects on healthy tissues.  The same is true for clorhexedine and other solutions sold for professional use.  The data supporting the routine use of Betadine in wound care is weak or insufficient, so its use will remain a controversial topic until better studies are completed.

At home I’m fine with using tap water and soap on my wounds and usually skip antibiotic ointment.

Offline David in MN

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Karma: 162
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2017, 08:15:28 PM »
We have a pharmacist in the family and what she does stuns me.

THIS IS IN NO WAY MEDICAL ADVICE

Routinely she's combining bacitracin and hydrocortizone with neosporin and crushing up an aspirin in with it. And that's just the start. SHe treated a beesting I had a year ago in such a way. Actually ground an allergy pill into antibiotics. It worked quick and I am sensitive.

I wouldn't feel comfortable advising such things but if you watch a pharmacist deal with an issue it's always a custom blend to solve a unique problem. It's a far cry from dad who poured bourbon on my cuts and offered, "toughen up".

The doctors and pharmacists these days are so advanced but are handicapped by the law. They could tell you brilliant ways to handle a situation but suddenly liability. That's why I say nothing here is medical advice. Consult your doctor.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2017, 08:27:55 PM »
i like the bourbon advice!  For medicinal purposes of course. 8)

I would like to read anything (studies, article) anyone has on the bad effects of iodine being too toxic on tissue for proper healing.  I mean Iodex worked fine for us as kids and I have never had a problem with healing using Betadine as a final wash and neosporin for dressing changes.  Perhaps it is an issue just for more sensitive skin or something?

For myself I will probably continue to use what works, but sine we often care for our grandkids I would like to the specific evidence against doing the same for them.

Offline chad

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 43
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2017, 10:05:15 PM »
Just a forum's member opinion.....

Through everything you got to prevent infection...you'll know it.


Offline mountainmoma

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4419
  • Karma: 199
  • suburban homesteader
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2017, 01:37:51 AM »
I have great results fighting off infections with calendula.

I would choose betadine over alcohol or hydrogen peroxide.

This works fantastic,  http://truefoodsmarket.com/weleda-essential-medicine-wound-care-0-88-oz.html which is a calendula cream, with a few other things. We make our own calendula tincture, and put in hot water ( to get rid of the alcohol) and soak wounds with this with great results. One of my kids had MRSA, from locker room, and not much worked well on it, but was did work well was Silver Salve ( a colloidal silver cream) Realy, worked better than antibiotic creams.

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2017, 04:04:51 AM »
  I use a UV light and it appears to keep infection at bay and cuts heal as fast or faster than when I apply topical remedies.
I would use what preventatives I had on hand even if it was just soap and water or my Listerine mouthwash, or once alcohol stove fuel.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2017, 04:29:00 AM »
OK, now a UV light sounds cool!  I like your thinking Carl.  I am planning to finally try out a Steri-pen this month so maybe I will try that out on my next cut/scape as well.  How long do you expose to US and what distance?  Stop when you smell flesh cooking?!

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2017, 04:52:04 AM »
OK, now a UV light sounds cool!  I like your thinking Carl.  I am planning to finally try out a Steri-pen this month so maybe I will try that out on my next cut/scape as well.  How long do you expose to US and what distance?  Stop when you smell flesh cooking?!

I use a 120 volt UV bulb with standard household screw in base,I think 40 watts in a lamp mounted on a desk when at BOL or a Flashlight with a bunch of LEDs (51 LED) when at home and expose for 10 to 20 Minutes as I tire of holding the flashlight and often forget the 120 volt lamp. I don't know that longer time or higher power make much difference to effectiveness. I position or hold the light 2 to 3 feet away and LED is not more effective than the CFL bulds available though I think light 'frequency' can be . (I use 395 NM successfully,and have not tried others for effectiveness)

Flashlight (works for drinking water too) $10

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008133KB4/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Desk light bulb ,There are many others ,but the one I use now is LED:

https://www.amazon.com/KINGBO-Blacklight-UV-lighting-Aquarium/dp/B0749JNZXV/ref=sr_1_72?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1506510256&sr=1-72&keywords=UV+light+bulb
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 05:00:21 AM by Carl »

LVWood

  • Guest
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2017, 06:38:28 AM »
Why not iodine?
Because it stings like crazy!!!

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2017, 04:32:04 AM »
LET ME POSE THIS QUESTION SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.  In a long term emergency situation (grid down, economic collapse, etc for months at least), would your wound treatment regimen change at all?

The reason I ask this is just as my daughter experienced, the doctor's recommendations did not prevent infection, but he did prescribe oral antibiotics and now it is under control.  But what if the oral meds were not available?  Today we don't think too much of a "little infection" because we can always run down to urgent care and get a prescription and 2 days later we are on the mend.  But what if getting an infection meant probable loss of appendage/limb or life?

I would imagine that if we find ourselves in a long term emergency then there is likely to be much bacteria floating around from dead bodies (animal and human), generally less scrupulous hygiene practices day in and day out, and increased exposure to "dirty" things as we engage in more manual repairs, chores, etc involving dirty water to be filtered, digging more in dirt and manure, handling machinery and possibly being more confined with more people in bad weather.  All the while we might be using blades more in a manual fashion, working with fences and briars and broken metal parts, etc. all leading to an increase incidence of cuts, punctures and abrasions.

Given such a scenario do you stick with your current method of wound treatment, or do you run and soak it in a gallon of bleach now that your limb or life may depend on your treatment success? :D  I'm not sure myself, but I think I would error on the side of maybe killing off a few more outermost healthy cells in favor of being sure I killed off every last bacteria cell.  I would be pretty paranoid about getting deep wounds and not absolutely positively completely for sure do everything possible to prevent any possibility of infection.

What would you do different in this scenario, or completely the same as today?

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2017, 05:56:09 AM »
  Infection is very important as my immune system is compromised and I often have disgustingly low white cell count due to chemo.
I will grab the gelled alcohol 'sanitizing hand cleaner',rubbing alcohol,the 95% fuel for my alcohol burner,soap and water....most any
anti-bacterial thing ,even mouthwash,iodine etc to eliminate the chance of infection. The UV lamp was a distraction ,though partially
on subject. I will work for the fastest solution and as I am able ,treat with what I feel is the best ,at the time though I prefer small wounds
are not kept from the air buy say a triple antibiotic gel/paste ,but that is just my preference as I use first,what I can access fastest.

 I even used tape and a silver dollar (luckey piece) once as a last ditch preventative and it did work till I accessed the right stuff.

Offline Stwood

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4080
  • Karma: 65
  • Wut wuz dat Olie?
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2017, 11:15:33 AM »
They used iodine on my leg when they cut it for a stent.
They used iodine on my arm when I had surgery on it.
We use it at home.
We use it on the piggies if they get a cut.

My folks always used it.

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2017, 11:46:52 AM »
  We were taught to use Merthiolate with Pork and pork byproducts. ???



  I guess when doctors found out they could just over prescribe antibiotics and probably get a kickback from their drug dealers.
They forget to suggest the safer methods like iodine and merthiolate..


I get single use iodine from here fairly often when ordering other stuff.

http://www.gofastandlight.com/Health-Safety/products/9/?utm_source=September+2017+New+Product+Newsletter&utm_campaign=September+2017+New+Product+Mailer&utm_medium=email


If you read this far , here is a better price $7 per 100 PVP pads

https://www.amazon.com/Dynarex-PVP-Iodine-Wipes-100-Pack/dp/B003U463PY/ref=sr_1_30_s_it?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1506622307&sr=1-30&keywords=iodine
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 11:58:24 AM by Carl »

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2017, 12:06:38 PM »
A doctor who is a partner at my BOL says many people have allergic reactions to iodine and a shift in marketing towards triple antibiotic drove most doctors from suggesting it...bad allergic reactions are rare ,he adds.
Either is better than maggots that once were state of the art for infections.

Offline FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 6083
  • Karma: 771
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2017, 03:18:29 PM »
Given such a scenario do you stick with your current method of wound treatment, or do you run and soak it in a gallon of bleach now that your limb or life may depend on your treatment success? :D  I'm not sure myself, but I think I would error on the side of maybe killing off a few more outermost healthy cells in favor of being sure I killed off every last bacteria cell.  I would be pretty paranoid about getting deep wounds and not absolutely positively completely for sure do everything possible to prevent any possibility of infection.

It’s impossible to kill off every last bacterial cell. 

Surgeons scrubbing their hands for 10 minutes with Betadine or Hibiclense still have live bacteria on their hands when they glove up and some of those bacteria still manage to get through that latex barrier.  Surgical sites are shaved and scrubbed in a similar fashion and bacteria still survive and find a way in thru the surgical incision.  Some surgeons go an extra step and put on space suits in an attempt to minimize infection rates and they still have patients with post operative infections, some of whom may die or lose a limb as a result.  A huge percentage of surgical patients are loaded with antibiotics prior to incision but still get infected by bacteria that should be sensitive to those antibiotics.

So, despite all manner of heroic efforts, bacteria will still win some of the time.  At best we can minimize the risk of bacterial infection to some low level, but we will never eliminate it.  Plus, we are surrounded by bacteria constantly, in us, on us, and around us.  And more often than not we’re healthier as a result of that close association.

In a grid down situation, I’d absolutely use betadine in a hideous, poop encrusted, wound.  But I’d also be sure to irrigate the hell out of it with as much clear (not necessarily even sterile or potable) water under moderate pressure as I could afford to spare.  Irrigating the wound sufficiently is the biggest bang for your wound-infection-prevention buck. Hands down, end of story.

Dilution is the solution for pollution.  Which is why, for most common first aid appropriate wounds, washing it at the sink under tap water with soap prior to bandaging or closure is more than adequate.

I stock betadine, topical antibiotics, several different classes of oral antibiotics, lidocaine, and suture supplies, but I don’t use them when I injure myself around the house. Even those injuries that most would go to the ER for stitches.  I wash the wound thoroughly with soap and water, glue or tape it back together and examine it religiously during dressing changes a couple times per day.  That’s what I do now in an optimal medical environment and I would continue to do that for myself and those with me in the vast majority of situations in a SHTF environment.

There’s a place for heroic medical solutions, but they’re not nearly as necessary as the medical industrial complex, or prepper supply houses, would have us believe. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 03:49:44 PM by FreeLancer »

Offline mountainmoma

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4419
  • Karma: 199
  • suburban homesteader
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2017, 04:37:46 PM »
one of my kids ended up hospitalized for what was a scraped knee. It could have been that I didn't wash it well enough on initial wound time, as it is very hard to know, could be a piece of gravel was left in the knee. From what they tell me though, it is more likely it was infected the next week when the scab was knocked off. The child in question was old enough to bath and dress on their own, so I never saw the scrape again after the initial clean out, didnt know play had knocked the scab off, until the child was limping, and I found out why. It was after this time though that I spend more time soaking and compressing wounds. With calendula now.

I appreciate your pointers Freelancer, remembering to clean well, lots of water. Easier said than done with some children. In an emergency situation with reduced medical help, seems like we should make double sure on the cleaning, even if it means getting help from a neighbor on holding a child down ( different child of mine; me, the doctor and a nurse were hard put to pull a very accessible tick out of that toddler, I drove down for help for that one...) and, remember to examine even small scrapes and wounds, at least daily, to nip such problems in the bud. Seems that the hero of One Second After got a bad infection from not cleaning a wound right away and well enough, too.


Offline FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 6083
  • Karma: 771
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2017, 05:39:29 PM »
And don't forget that the underlying health of the patient often makes all the difference in who winds up with a wound infection, too.

If you think about a common chronic disease like diabetes, where the combination of impaired immune, circulatory, and sensory function turns otherwise minor injuries into a medical emergency, it makes one very scared for a future where the "system" goes offline for any significant period of time.

I get worried when I see a 300lb patient with a day-old toe contusion and their finger stick comes back with a glucose of 380.  That's someone who, even with today's best care from day one could wind up losing half their foot from an otherwise minor injury that gets horribly infected.  These injuries go from zero to toxic scary fast. 

Lots of surgeons won't do elective procedures on patients with poorly controlled diabetes.  Many won't operate on smokers either.  The risk of bad outcomes due to poor circulation and immune function outweighs the potential benefits.  Why risk their reputation and outcomes statistics on people who can't get with the program?

Diabetes is a scary disease.  Period.  Don't get it, if you can help it, although many of us have the genetic deck stacked against us.  If you've got it, control the hell out of it with the least amount of reliance on the medical system, because if or when the luxury of that system goes away, things are going to get real interesting for diabetics in ways nobody ever wants to experience.

Offline Alan Georges

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4589
  • Karma: 210
  • Still trying to reason with hurricane season.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2017, 06:11:40 PM »
Sugar hasn't been mentioned yet here.  The author of the book Ditch Medicine wrote quite a bit about packing wounds with it, mostly during armed conflicts in third-world hellholes.

Anybody have any experience using it?  Strangely, I don't recall Dr. Bones & Nurse Amy discussing it in their big book.  OTOH, it's been a few years since I've read it.  Guess that means time to re-read.

Offline machinisttx

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
  • Karma: 48
  • yay
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2017, 06:40:19 PM »
Last time I got stitches they swabbed the area with iodine. I don't think we have any iodine here at the house...probably should rectify that.

Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 714
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2017, 04:43:13 AM »
Sugar hasn't been mentioned yet here.  The author of the book Ditch Medicine wrote quite a bit about packing wounds with it, mostly during armed conflicts in third-world hellholes.

Anybody have any experience using it?  Strangely, I don't recall Dr. Bones & Nurse Amy discussing it in their big book.  OTOH, it's been a few years since I've read it.  Guess that means time to re-read.

  I have heard of sugar as a healing aide an use MEDI-HONEY on cuts that refuse to heal as my system has poor circulation,type2 diabetes,and now the effects of chemo that cause extreme low white cell count (immune system compromised)

Offline Alan Georges

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4589
  • Karma: 210
  • Still trying to reason with hurricane season.
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2017, 06:41:22 AM »
Interesting Carl, I'd never heard of it so I had to go look it up:
http://www.dermasciences.com/medihoney
Learn something new every day around this place.

Offline FreeThinker

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Karma: 9
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2017, 07:06:07 AM »
LET ME POSE THIS QUESTION SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.  In a long term emergency situation (grid down, economic collapse, etc for months at least), would your wound treatment regimen change at all?

The reason I ask this is just as my daughter experienced, the doctor's recommendations did not prevent infection, but he did prescribe oral antibiotics and now it is under control.  But what if the oral meds were not available?  Today we don't think too much of a "little infection" because we can always run down to urgent care and get a prescription and 2 days later we are on the mend.  But what if getting an infection meant probable loss of appendage/limb or life?

I would imagine that if we find ourselves in a long term emergency then there is likely to be much bacteria floating around from dead bodies (animal and human), generally less scrupulous hygiene practices day in and day out, and increased exposure to "dirty" things as we engage in more manual repairs, chores, etc involving dirty water to be filtered, digging more in dirt and manure, handling machinery and possibly being more confined with more people in bad weather.  All the while we might be using blades more in a manual fashion, working with fences and briars and broken metal parts, etc. all leading to an increase incidence of cuts, punctures and abrasions.

Given such a scenario do you stick with your current method of wound treatment, or do you run and soak it in a gallon of bleach now that your limb or life may depend on your treatment success? :D  I'm not sure myself, but I think I would error on the side of maybe killing off a few more outermost healthy cells in favor of being sure I killed off every last bacteria cell.  I would be pretty paranoid about getting deep wounds and not absolutely positively completely for sure do everything possible to prevent any possibility of infection.

What would you do different in this scenario, or completely the same as today?

Think that's a great question, and one that needs to be asked when treating most any health problem in the emergency scenario described, not just for wounds.  To answer your question, yes, I'll treat wounds differently then than I do now.

Before I explain, if you've ever tried to research a question and found a relevant looking article or study only to find they wanted $49.95 for it, then you might check out Library Genesis and select to search the "scientific articles" section.

There's also a good article about this topic available on the Wounds Research site, Antiseptics on Wounds: An Area of Controversy.  This quote from it might help explain my answer:

Quote

The use of antiseptics in wound care is controversial.  The debate started after Fleming's lecture in 1919 about his work on antiseptics in septic wounds. The use of antiseptics began to decrease in 1929 after the discovery of penicillin. Stringer et al showed that antiseptics confer no benefit as compared to saline in cleansing wounds. In vitro experiments by Brennan and Leaper demonstrated antiseptics were detrimental to the production of collagen, impairing epithehal migration and inhibiting microcirculation. Furthermore antiseptics are inactivated by contact with body fluids, blood, and proteins.  However, they need to be in contact long enough to reduce bacterial numbers. This evidence led to a  decrease in the popularity of antiseptics for  wound cleansing and there was a decline in their use with more emphasis on antibiotics in the treatment of contaminated/infected wounds. However, with the emergence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, there has been a reappraisal in the use of antiseptics, and especially iodine compounds.

If you read past just the details in that quote and look for the reasoning behind the recommendation changes over the last century, you might come to some of the same conclusions I did: 

- Before the discovery of penicillin, preventing infection was the primary goal and decreasing the bacterial load in a wound with an antiseptic was the best way to do that.

- Once antibiotics came into widespread use and infections were much easier to treat however, then medical science started looking into less critical concerns like whether antiseptics might delay the natural healing process or contribute to scar formation afterwards.  Nothing wrong with that, faster healing and less disfigurement are good goals once infection isn't much of a threat.

- More recently however, with a larger community health concern of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the focus may again be shifting back to the use of antiseptics for wound cleansing, because a short delay in healing or cosmetic concerns about scars are secondary to MRSA (for example).

So what's the take-a-way for the survival medic?  For me, it's that you don't always want to blindly follow the current/latest recommendations for any medical condition in a disaster.  Specific to the topic here, delayed healing and scarring from using antiseptics for wound cleansing are minor concerns when compared to something like sepsis in a grid down scenario - where physicians, hospitals, laboratory testing, and pharmacies might not be available.  Likewise, tetanus or other potentially severe complications.  And doing my part to help limit the spread of MRSA in the community doesn't factor into the decision on whether or not to use antibiotics prophylactically when considering how best to treat my daughter in a disaster either. 

How I would treat and care for a wound would depend on (pardon the pun) a host of factors; age, medical history, vaccination history, type and location of the wound, its severity, likely contaminants, etc - and not just what the latest medical study recommends.  Just my two-cents.

Offline NWPilgrim

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1605
  • Karma: 114
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2017, 10:52:01 AM »
It’s impossible to kill off every last bacterial cell. 
...
Dilution is the solution for pollution.  Which is why, for most common first aid appropriate wounds, washing it at the sink under tap water with soap prior to bandaging or closure is more than adequate.

I stock betadine, topical antibiotics, several different classes of oral antibiotics, lidocaine, and suture supplies, but I don’t use them when I injure myself around the house. Even those injuries that most would go to the ER for stitches.  I wash the wound thoroughly with soap and water, glue or tape it back together and examine it religiously during dressing changes a couple times per day.  That’s what I do now in an optimal medical environment and I would continue to do that for myself and those with me in the vast majority of situations in a SHTF environment.

There’s a place for heroic medical solutions, but they’re not nearly as necessary as the medical industrial complex, or prepper supply houses, would have us believe.

Haha!  My father was a civil engineer and that is one of the earliest engineer words of wisdom I remember hearing!  Works same on the micro scale as well as macro one it seems.

Thanks, Freelancer, for your medical insight, not in this thread but in so many that come up.  I'm sure you get hammered by many people in your life for advice and it is nice to have your knowledge added to this forum.

Offline 1022

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: 0
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2017, 04:38:25 PM »
In all my years as a nurse I have never seen a physician suture a wound without first cleaning the area with betadine, unless the person had an allergy to it, then chlorhexadine was used. Just cleaning the surface with saline before suturing would seem incompetent to me, and unless the MD has a good reason I would not let them perform suturing on my patient without firstly creating a sterile field.

To simply clean a wound, in a clinical situation I would just use normal saline, to clean it. I may clean the peri-wound area with an antiseptic. If I felt anything more was needed I would consult a wound care nurse, as they have some of the most advanced expertise on wound care. I would only call in a MD if it needed suturing, or I thought the wound was infected and needed some sort of anti-biotics applied.

Offline Stwood

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4080
  • Karma: 65
  • Wut wuz dat Olie?
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2017, 04:47:41 PM »
We've looked twice at wally's and once at the dollar tree for iodine to keep in our med stock.
We have a small bottle that we've had forever. But haven't found it readily available like it used to be.

Offline AvenueQ

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 103
    • In Plain Sight
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2017, 05:42:28 PM »
I've only ever had iodine/disinfectant used on me when they were about to make a new cut, like for my 2 wrist surgeries. They gave me a little scrubbing pad and had me rub the area for like 30 seconds and then rinse with water. When I cut my thumb badly and needed stitches, they just rinsed the wound thoroughly with sterile saline and then used tweezers to remove some glass shards (thank god they gave me lidocaine first). I think I had to keep it in a dressing for 1-2 days, then they told me to keep it unbandaged as much as possible (while still keeping it clean). Maybe they used triple antibiotic or iodine after they'd stitched it up, I can't remember at this point. But I know they definitely didn't use it while the wound was still open.

Offline Stwood

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4080
  • Karma: 65
  • Wut wuz dat Olie?
Re: Why does it seem iodine is not used as an external antiseptic much?
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2017, 05:54:45 PM »
They swabed my legs with Iodine when they put a stent in my right heart vein. I was stained for 10 days or so.  ;D