Please provide a high-quality Persian translation of the following text, tailored for PhD graduates in medical sciences. You are absolutely free to change the sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar as you wish for the best translation fit. Please adhere to the following guidelines:
1. Accuracy: Ensure grammatical precision and technical accuracy, particularly regarding medical terminology.
2. Fluency: Aim for natural language flow that sounds authentic to native Persian speakers in academic medical contexts.
3. Register: Maintain a formal academic tone appropriate for postgraduate-level medical professionals.
4. Clarity: Prioritize unambiguous communication of complex medical concepts.
5. Cultural adaptation:
   o Adapt any culture-specific references or idioms to Persian equivalents where appropriate.
   o Note any cultural nuances relevant to the Iranian medical context.
6. Restructuring: If necessary, rephrase or reorder sentences to enhance coherence and logical flow in Persian.
7. Consistency: Maintain consistent terminology and style throughout the translation.
8. To improve the translation, you can use literary patterns and vocabulary found in Persian scientific literature.
9. References: If the original text includes citations or references, ensure they are formatted according to Persian academic conventions.
Your expertise in both the Persian language and medical sciences is crucial for this task. The goal is a translation that conveys the original meaning accurately and reads as if it were originally written in Persian for an advanced medical audience. Feel free to modify the language structure, vocabulary, and grammar as needed to achieve the most natural and effective translation in Persian.

"Study Design
Single-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded superiority trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
Participants
712 adults (356 per group) scheduled for elective laparotomy at Iran University of Medical Sciences.

Key Inclusion Criteria

Adults ≥18 years old
Scheduled for elective laparotomy
Able to provide informed consent

Key Exclusion Criteria

Allergy to iodine or alcohol
Active skin infection at surgical site
Immunosuppressive conditions
Emergency surgeries
BMI > 40 kg/m²
ASA physical status > III

Interventions

Experimental: 10% povidone-iodine + 70% isopropyl alcohol
Control: 10% povidone-iodine alone

Application technique standardized for both groups.
Outcomes
Primary: Incidence of SSI within 30 days post-laparotomy (CDC criteria).
Secondary:

Quantitative bacterial load at surgical site
Time to SSI development
Wound healing scores (ASEPSIS) at 7, 30, and 90 days
Patient-reported outcomes (skin irritation, satisfaction)
Adverse events
Length of hospital stay and readmission rates
Cost-effectiveness
Skin microbiome diversity and composition

Participant Timeline

Screening: Within 14 days pre-surgery
Randomization: Day of surgery
Follow-up: Daily in-hospital, then at 7, 30, and 90 days post-surgery
Additional phone assessments: Weekly between day 7 and 90

Sample Size
712 participants (356 per group), accounting for 10% loss to follow-up. Based on expected reduction in SSI rate from 15% to 7.5%, α=0.05, 80% power.
Recruitment and Randomization
Potential participants identified from surgical waiting list. Randomization using computer-generated sequence with varying block sizes (4, 6, 8). Allocation concealed using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.
Blinding
Outcome assessors, microbiologists, and data analysts blinded to group allocation. Complete blinding of surgeons and patients not feasible due to nature of interventions.
Data Collection and Management
Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) used for data collection. Regular quality checks and audits performed. Data de-identified using unique study ID numbers. Confidentiality maintained through secure, encrypted storage systems.
Statistical Analysis
Primary Analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis comparing SSI incidence using chi-square test. Risk ratios and number needed to treat (NNT) calculated with 95% confidence intervals.
Secondary Analyses

Bacterial load: Compared using t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests
Time to SSI: Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test
Wound healing: Linear mixed-effects models
Patient-reported outcomes: Ordinal logistic or linear regression
Cost-effectiveness: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with bootstrap confidence intervals

Multivariable Analysis
Cox proportional hazards regression for time to SSI, adjusting for potential confounders (age, BMI, diabetes, ASA score, surgery duration, wound classification).
Subgroup Analyses
Pre-specified subgroups: diabetic status, BMI categories, wound classification, surgery duration.
Handling Missing Data
Multiple imputation using chained equations (MICE). Sensitivity analyses using pattern mixture models.
Interim Analysis
One interim analysis at 50% enrollment completion. O'Brien-Fleming spending function used to maintain overall type I error rate of 0.05.
Data Monitoring and Safety
Independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) established. Interim analysis may recommend early termination for safety concerns, overwhelming efficacy, or futility.
Adverse events graded using CTCAE v5.0. Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) reported to Ethics Committee and sponsor within 24 hours.
Ethical Considerations
Study conducted in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Ethical approval obtained from Iran University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee.
Informed consent obtained by trained personnel. Participant confidentiality strictly maintained.
Dissemination Policy
Primary results submitted to high-impact medical journal within 12 months of study completion. Secondary analyses published in specialty journals. Results presented at relevant conferences.
Authorship determined according to ICMJE guidelines. De-identified individual participant data made available to approved researchers 9-36 months after publication.
Ancillary and Post-trial Care
Participants developing SSI receive standard care per institutional protocols. No additional post-trial care planned.

Limitations

Single-center design may limit generalizability
Inability to fully blind surgeons and patients
Potential for inter-observer variability in wound assessment

Timeline

Months 0-2: Protocol finalization and ethical approval
Months 3-5: Site preparation and staff training
Months 6-24: Recruitment and data collection
Months 25-27: Data analysis and manuscript preparation
Months 28-30: Manuscript submission and revision"