Inadine Dressings in Wound Care: Efficacy, Applications, and Comparisons

Inadine is a povidone-iodine–impregnated dressing widely used for its antimicrobial properties in wound management. It is designed to release iodine gradually, providing sustained antibacterial action while being easy to remove and generally well-tolerated. Research has evaluated Inadine’s effectiveness across various wound types, its comparative performance, and its role in infection prevention.

Mechanism and Antibacterial Efficacy

Inadine contains 10% povidone-iodine, releasing 1% available iodine upon contact with wound exudate, which is effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria (Sibbald & Elliott, 2017; Jeffcoate et al., 2009; Kučerová et al., 2023). Studies show Inadine and similar iodine dressings have strong in vitro antibacterial activity, with persistent effects even after removal, outperforming chlorhexidine and bismuth-based dressings against most wound pathogens (Kučerová et al., 2023). In animal models, Inadine significantly reduced bacterial counts in contaminated wounds, comparable to silver dressings and antibiotics (Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie et al., 2013).

Clinical Effectiveness and Applications

Inadine is used for burns, chronic ulcers, diabetic foot wounds, and surgical sites. In partial-thickness burns, Inadine reduced treatment time, analgesia needs, and time off work compared to chlorhexidine dressings (Han & Maitra, 1989). For diabetic foot ulcers, Inadine was as effective as other traditional and modern dressings in healing rates and time to healing, with no significant difference in adverse events (Jeffcoate et al., 2009). In surgical wounds, povidone-iodine–impregnated dressings reduced surgical site infection rates (Tavanaei et al., 2023).

Comparisons with Other Dressings

Meta-analyses indicate that while Inadine and other iodine dressings are effective antimicrobials, silver dressings may reduce healing time more significantly, though healing rates are similar (Jiang et al., 2024). Honey-based dressings may offer faster healing and less pain than povidone-iodine dressings (Zhang et al., 2021). Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest Inadine is less expensive than some modern alternatives (Jeffcoate et al., 2009).

Key Research on Inadine Dressings

Application Area	Main Findings	Citations
Antibacterial efficacy	Strong, broad-spectrum, persistent effect; superior to some alternatives	(Sibbald & Elliott, 2017; Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie et al., 2013; Kučerová et al., 2023)
Burn wounds	Reduced pain, fewer hospital visits, faster return to activities	(Han & Maitra, 1989; Wilson et al., 1986)
Chronic ulcers/diabetes	Comparable healing to other dressings; cost-effective	(Jeffcoate et al., 2009)
Surgical site infection	Reduced infection rates with preoperative use	(Tavanaei et al., 2023)

Figure 1: Summary of Inadine’s clinical and antibacterial performance

Summary

Inadine dressings provide effective, broad-spectrum antimicrobial action and are suitable for various wound types, including burns, ulcers, and surgical wounds. While not always superior in healing speed to silver or honey dressings, Inadine remains a cost-effective, well-tolerated option with proven infection control benefits.

These papers were sourced and synthesized using Consensus, an AI-powered search engine for research. Try it at https://consensus.app

References

Tavanaei, R., Ashghani, M., Ahmadi, P., Alizadeh, S., Yazdani, K., Zali, A., & Oraee-Yazdani, S. (2023). Effects of Preoperative Use of Povidone-Iodine–Impregnated Dressing on Postoperative Rate of Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Randomized, Nonblinded, Active-Controlled Trial. Neurosurgery, 94, 926 - 932. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002768

Sibbald, R., & Elliott, J. (2017). The role of Inadine in wound care: a consensus document. International Wound Journal, 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12602

Zhang, F., Chen, Z., Su, F., & Zhang, T. (2021). Comparison of topical honey and povidone iodine-based dressings for wound healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Journal of wound care, 30 Sup4, S28-S36. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2021.30.Sup4.S28

Han, K., & Maitra, A. (1989). Management of partial skin thickness burn wounds with Inadine dressings.. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, 15 6, 399-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4179(89)90109-5

Jeffcoate, W., Price, P., Phillips, C., Game, F., Mudge, E., Davies, S., Amery, C., Edmonds, M., Gibby, O., Johnson, A., Jones, G., Masson, E., Patmore, J., Price, D., Rayman, G., & Harding, K. (2009). Randomised controlled trial of the use of three dressing preparations in the management of chronic ulceration of the foot in diabetes.. Health technology assessment, 13 54, 1-86, iii-iv. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13540

Guthrie, H., Martin, K., Taylor, C., Spear, A., Whiting, R., Macildowie, S., Clasper, J., & Watts, S. (2014). A pre-clinical evaluation of silver, iodine and Manuka honey based dressings in a model of traumatic extremity wounds contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus.. Injury, 45 8, 1171-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.05.007

Guthrie, H., Martin, K., Taylor, C., Spear, A., Clasper, J., & Watts, S. (2013). DETERMINING THE CLINICAL RELEVANCE OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN BACTERIAL COUNTS IN A MODEL OF EXTREMITY WAR WOUNDS. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 8-8.

Wilson, G., Fowler, C., Ledger, J., & Thorley, M. (1986). Evaluation of a new antiseptic dressing in minor burns.. Burns, including thermal injury, 12 7, 518-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4179(86)90080-X

Jiang, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, H., Välimäki, M., Zhou, Q., Dai, W., & Guo, J. (2024). Effectiveness of silver and iodine dressings on wound healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 14. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077902

Kučerová, J., Mezera, V., & Bureš, I. (2023). [In vitro comparison of antibacterial efficacy of nonadherent antimicrobial dressings].. Klinicka mikrobiologie a infekcni lekarstvi, 29 2, 36-42.