Search

It is important for caregivers and patients to know which wounds are at risk of prolonged wound healing to enable timely communication and treatment. Available prognostic models predict wound healing in chronic ulcers, but not in acute wounds, that is, originating after trauma or surgery. We developed a model to detect which factors can predict (prolonged) healing of complex acute wounds in patients treated in a large wound expertise centre (WEC). Using Cox and linear regression analyses, we determined which patient- and wound-related characteristics best predict time to complete wound healing and derived a prediction formula to estimate how long this may take. We selected 563 patients with acute wounds, documented in the WEC registry between 2007 and 2012. Wounds had existed for a median of 19 days (range 6-46 days). The majority of these were located on the leg (52%). Five significant independent predictors of prolonged wound healing were identified: wound location on the trunk [hazard ratio (HR) 0·565, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·405-0·788; P = 0·001], wound infection (HR 0·728, 95% CI 0·534-0·991; P = 0·044), wound size (HR 0·993, 95% CI 0·988-0·997; P = 0·001), wound duration (HR 0·998, 95% CI 0·996-0·999; P = 0·005) and patient's age (HR 1·009, 95% CI 1·001-1·018; P = 0·020), but not diabetes. Awareness of the five factors predicting the healing of complex acute wounds, particularly wound infection and location on the trunk, may help caregivers to predict wound healing time and to detect, refer and focus on patients who need additional attention., (© 2013 The Authors. International Wound Journal © 2013 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma). However, the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear. , Objectives: To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 5 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 08, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2013 Week 31); EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 8 August 2013)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions such as dressings, steroids, or sham HOBT or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author. , Main Results: Four trials involving 229 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, which precluded a meta-analysis.One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available). A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT. The fourth trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review were not reported. All four trials were at unclear or high risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma, these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.

Background: The aim was to study which dressing material was best for healing donor-site wounds (DSWs) after split-skin grafting as there is wide variation in existing methods, ranging from classical gauze dressings to modern silicone dressings., Methods: This 14-centre, six-armed randomized clinical trial (stratified by centre) compared six wound dressing materials in adult patients with DSWs larger than 10 cm(2) . Primary outcomes were time to complete re-epithelialization and pain scores measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) over 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included itching (VAS, over 4 weeks), adverse events and scarring after 12 weeks rated using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)., Results: Between October 2009 and December 2011, 289 patients were randomized (of whom 288 were analysed) to either alginate (45), film (49), gauze (50), hydrocolloid (49), hydrofibre (47) or silicone (48) dressings. Time to complete re-epithelialization using hydrocolloid dressings was 7 days shorter than when any other dressing was used (median 16 versus 23 days; P < 0·001). Overall pain scores were low, and slightly lower with use of film dressings (P = 0·038). The infection rate among patients treated with gauze was twice as high as in those who had other dressings (18 versus 7·6 per cent; relative risk 2·38, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·14 to 4·99). Patients who had a film dressing were least satisfied with overall scar quality., Conclusion: This trial showed that use of hydrocolloid dressings led to the speediest healing of DSWs. Gauze dressing should be discontinued as they caused more infections., Registration Number: NTR1849 (http://www.trialregister.nl)., (© 2013 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The interdisciplinary evidence-based guideline 'Wound Care' covers the treatment and management of acute wounds in adults and children and by all wound care disciplines. This guideline answers 5 basic questions with 38 recommendations covering wound cleansing, pain relief, instructing the patient, various dressings and the organisational aspects of wound care. The guideline recommendations include not to cleanse wounds that are primarily closed, to cleanse acute open wounds with clean tap water, to use the WHO pain ladder as the basis for the choice of analgesics for continuous wound pain, to administer lidocaine or prilocaine for localized pain relief during manipulation, not to cover primarily closed wounds with dressings, to use simple dressings for open wounds and to give the patient clear instructions. The guideline also advises about wound registration, documentation and hand-over of wound care, and recommends making clear agreements about referrals and responsibilities.

Background: Donor site wounds after split-skin grafting are rather 'standard' wounds. At present, lots of dressings and topical agents for donor site wounds are commercially available. This causes large variation in the local care of these wounds, while the optimum 'standard' dressing for local wound care is unclear. This protocol describes a trial in which we investigate the effectiveness of various treatment options for these donor site wounds., Methods: A 14-center, six-armed randomized clinical trial is being carried out in the Netherlands. An a-priori power analysis and an anticipated dropout rate of 15% indicates that 50 patients per group are necessary, totaling 300 patients, to be able to detect a 25% quicker mean time to complete wound healing. Randomization has been computerized to ensure allocation concealment. Adult patients who need a split-skin grafting operation for any reason, leaving a donor site wound of at least 10 cm2 are included and receive one of the following dressings: hydrocolloid, alginate, film, hydrofiber, silicone dressing, or paraffin gauze. No combinations of products from other intervention groups in this trial are allowed. Optimum application and changes of these dressings are pursued according to the protocol as supplied by the dressing manufacturers. Primary outcomes are days to complete wound healing and pain (using a Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary outcomes are adverse effects, scarring, patient satisfaction, and costs. Outcome assessors unaware of the treatment allocation will assess whether or not an outcome has occurred. Results will be analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. The first patient was randomized October 1, 2009., Discussion: This study will provide comprehensive data on the effectiveness of different treatment options for donor site wounds. The dressing(s) that will prevail in effectiveness, satisfaction and costs will be promoted among clinicians dealing with such patients. Thus, we aim to contribute a well-designed trial, relevant to all clinicians involved in the care for donor site wounds, which will help enhance uniformity and quality of care for these patients., Trial Registration: http://www.trialregister.nl, NTR1849. Date registered: June 9, 2009.

Background: The red-yellow-black-scheme (RYB) is a well-known and validated scheme to classify chronic and acute wounds, based on wound color and moistness. We investigated whether this RYB-scheme is also useful to classify donor site wounds uniformly (DSW)., Methods: Twenty-three digital photographs of DSWs in various stages of wound healing were presented to internationally renowned wound scientists (n=11), surgical doctors (n=31), specialized wound nurses (n=55), and surgical nurses (n=28). These observers classified the color and moistness of the wound according to the RYB-scheme, yielding seven wound categories. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was expressed as a kappa (κ) value., Results: IOA's among specialized wound nurses were moderate when based on wound color and moistness (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.33-0.49), wound color only (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.29-0.53), or moistness only (κ=0.54; 95% CI 0.45-0.64). However, these IOA's tended to be better than those among the scientists, doctors and nurses. Scientists showed the lowest agreement (k-values between 0.17 and 0.25). Doctors scored slightly better than nurses., Conclusion: Clinicians and scientists have difficulty with classifying DSWs by means of the RYB-scheme. Therefore, this scheme does not appear useful to classify donor site wounds in a uniform manner., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used to treat various wound types. However, the possible beneficial and harmful effects of HBOT for acute wounds are unclear., Methods: We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT compared to other interventions on wound healing and adverse effects in patients with acute wounds. To detect all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we searched five relevant databases up to March 2010. Trial selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by two of the authors independently., Results: We included five trials, totaling 360 patients. These trials, with some methodologic flaws, included different kinds of wound and focused on different outcome parameters, which prohibited meta-analysis. A French trial (n = 36 patients) reported that significantly more crush wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT [relative risk (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.61]. Moreover, there were significantly fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03-2.50), and there was significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11-2.61). In one of two American trials (n = 141) burn wounds healed significantly quicker with HBOT (P < 0.005) than with routine burn care. A British trial (n = 48) compared HBOT with usual care. HBOT resulted in a significantly higher percentage of healthy graft area in split skin grafts (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.35-9.11). In a Chinese trial (n = 145) HBOT did not significantly improve flap survival in patients with limb skin defects., Conclusions: HBOT, if readily available, appears effective for the management of acute, difficult to heal wounds.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma) however the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear. , Objectives: To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (25 August 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 2 2010 ), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 24, 2010), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2010, Week 33) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 20 August 2010)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author. , Main Results: Three trials involving 219 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, therefore a meta-analysis was inappropriate.One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61) and fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT: RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.02 and significantly less tissue necrosis: RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90). A third trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review, including mortality, pain scores, quality of life, patient satisfaction, activities daily living, increase in transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcpO(2)), amputation, length of hospital stay and costs, were not reported. All three trials were at unclear or high risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.

Antiseptics are commonly applied to prevent or treat wound infections. Many common opinions about antiseptics appear not to be supported by convincing evidence. The aim of this review is to compare such traditional beliefs with currently available evidence. While antiseptics obviously reduce the number of pathogens, their value as a supplement to or as replacement of wound cleansing remains unclear.Some antiseptics encourage wound healing, others may even delay it. Many of the adverse effects ascribed to antiseptics are not supported by evidence; nevertheless this has resulted in a reduction of their use.If used as part of a multifaceted approach to wound care, antiseptics are to be preferred over locally applied antibiotics as they are safer, have a broader spectrum of activity (particularly against antibiotic-resistant bacteria), and rarely lead to resistance.

In surgery, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is applied for thoracic, abdominal, and extremity wounds, particularly if there is traumatic tissue loss, if primary wound closure is not possible or if the wound has to be left open or reopened because of an infection. The NPWT applications are, however, running ahead of scientific evidence to support their use. Although there is plenty of literature available, very little convincing evidence exists based on well-conducted, randomised trials. NPWT can be applied to thoracic wounds (usually due to deep sternal wound infections) to reduce treatment duration. NPWT also appears useful if primary closure of the abdomen is not possible. For traumatic extremity wounds, NPWT can be helpful as a practical temporary wound cover. Possible disadvantages of NPWT are skin irritation, painful dressing changes, entero-atmospheric fistulae, and the risk of bleeding in patients using anticoagulants. The effect of NPWT on wound healing, infection, mortality, and costs remains unclear. To obtain convincing evidence, we call for greater NPWT application in a research context.

Objective: To compare effectiveness and costs of gauze-based vs occlusive, moist-environment dressing principles., Design: Randomized clinical trial., Setting: Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Patients: Two hundred eighty-five hospitalized surgical patients with open wounds., Intervention: Patients received occlusive (ie, foams, alginates, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, hydrofibers, or films) or gauze-based dressings until their wounds were completely healed., Main Outcome Measures: Primary end points were complete wound healing, pain during dressing changes, and costs. Secondary end point was length of hospital stay., Results: Time to complete wound healing did not differ significantly between occlusive (median, 66 days; interquartile range [IQR], 29-133 days) and gauze-based dressing groups (median, 45 days; IQR, 26-106 days; log-rank P = .31). Postoperative wounds (62% of the wounds included) healed significantly (P = .02) quicker using gauze dressings (median, 45 days; IQR, 22-93 days vs median, 72 days; IQR, 36-132 days). Median pain scores were low and similar in the occlusive (0.90; IQR, 0.29-2.34) and the gauze (0.64; IQR, 0.22-1.95) groups (P = .32). Daily costs of occlusive materials were significantly higher (occlusive, euro6.34 [US $9.95] vs gauze, euro1.85 [US $2.90]; P < .001), but nursing time costs per day were significantly higher when gauze was used (occlusive, euro1.28 [US $2.01] vs gauze, euro2.41 [US $3.78]; P < .001). Total cost for local wound care per patient per day during hospitalization was euro7.48 (US $11.74) in the occlusive group and euro3.98 (US $6.25) in the gauze-based group (P = .002)., Conclusions: The occlusive, moist-environment dressing principle in the clinical surgical setting does not lead to quicker wound healing or less pain than gauze dressings. The lower costs of less frequent dressing changes do not balance the higher costs of occlusive materials. Trial Registration trialregister.nl Identifier: 56264738.

Background: Chronic wounds mainly affect the elderly and those with multiple health problems. Despite the use of modern dressings, some of these wounds take a long time to heal, fail to heal, or recur, causing significant pain and discomfort to the person and cost to health services. Topical negative pressure (TNP) is used to promote healing of surgical wounds by using suction to drain excess fluid from wounds., Objectives: To assess the effects of TNP on chronic wound healing., Search Strategy: For this second update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007, Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to November Week 2 2007, Ovid EMBASE - 1982 to 2007 Week 50 and Ovid CINAHL - 1980 to December Week 1 2007. In addition, we contacted authors, companies, manufacturers, and distributors to identify relevant trials and information., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials which evaluated the effects of TNP on people with chronic wounds., Data Collection and Analysis: Selection of the trials, quality assessment, data abstraction, and data synthesis were done by two authors independently. Disagreements were solved by discussion., Main Results: Two trials were included in the original review. A further five trials were included in this second update resulting in a total of seven trials involving 205 participants. The seven trials compared TNP with five different comparator treatments. Four trials compared TNP with gauze soaked in either 0.9% saline or Ringer's solution. The other three trials compared TNP with hydrocolloid gel plus gauze, a treatment package comprising papain-urea topical treatment, and cadexomer iodine or hydrocolloid, hydrogels, alginate and foam. These data do not show that TNP significantly increases the healing rate of chronic wounds compared with comparators. Data on secondary outcomes such as infection rate, quality of life, oedema, hospitalisation and bacterial load were not reported., Authors' Conclusions: Trials comparing TNP with alternative treatments for chronic wounds have methodological flaws and data do demonstrate a beneficial effect of TNP on wound healing however more, better quality research is needed.

Background: Topical negative pressure (TNP) therapy is becoming increasingly popular for all kinds of wounds. Its clinical and cost effectiveness is unclear., Methods: A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TNP in adult patients with all kinds of wounds in all settings was undertaken in Medline, Embase, Cinahl (to October 2007) and the Cochrane Library (to issue 4, 2007). Information was also sought from manufacturer of the VAC device. Selection of trials for analysis, quality assessment, data abstraction and data synthesis were conducted by two authors independently. The primary endpoint was any measure of wound healing. Secondary endpoints were infection, pain, quality of life, oedema, microcirculation, bacterial load, adverse events, duration of hospital stay and cost., Results: The search identified 15 publications on 13 RCTs. These reported on patients with chronic wounds, diabetic wounds, pressure ulcers, skin grafts and acute wounds. In chronic and diabetic wounds, TNP did not allow earlier complete wound healing. It was, however, associated with a 1-10 day reduction in the time needed to prepare the wound for secondary closure surgery. In one trial on acute wounds, 17 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.02 to 0.32) per cent more wounds appeared to heal with TNP; the number needed to treat was six. This was, however, at the cost of an 11 (95 per cent c.i. 0.01 to 0.21) per cent higher complication rate; the number needed to harm was nine., Conclusion: There is little evidence to support the use of TNP in the treatment of wounds., (2008 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aim and Objectives: Primary: to study the level of agreement among nurses and doctors in classifying the colour and exudation of open wounds according to the Red-Yellow-Black scheme. Secondary: to check their agreement with an international expert panel on whether their classification was correct., Background: Nurses and doctors classify open wounds to assess systemic and local treatment options. Nowadays, several classification schemes are being used. The Red-Yellow-Black-scheme is commonly used for classifying open wounds or is part of other, more intricate, wound classification models., Methods: Eighteen representative photographs of red, yellow and black wounds were presented to 63 nurses and 79 doctors from the Department of Surgery. They classified these open wounds for colour and amount of exudation. Group kappa's (kappa) were calculated to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement and their agreement with an expert panel., Results: Agreement among the 63 nurses on wound colour (kappa = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) and exudation (kappa = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.68) was moderate to good. Agreement among the 79 doctors was similar: kappa = 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.73 for wound colour and kappa = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36-0.61 for exudation. Nurses' and doctors' agreement with the expert panel was also moderate to good: kappa-values ranged between 0.48 and 0.77., Conclusion: Based on the good to moderate inter-observer agreement as found in this study, the Red-Yellow-Black -scheme appears to be a reliable and accurate classification scheme to assess open (surgical) wounds. Such a scheme may enable nurses and doctors to select the appropriate treatment modalities and evaluate the progress of the healing process., Relevance to Clinical Practice: The Red-Yellow-Black scheme is a helpful tool to classify all kinds of wounds and can be used as stand-alone classification method or as part of wound management concepts.

Background: Topical silver treatments and silver dressings are increasingly used for the local treatment of contaminated or infected wounds, however, there is a lack of clarity regarding the evidence for their effectiveness., Objectives: To evaluate the effects on wound healing of topical silver and silver dressings in the treatment of contaminated and infected acute or chronic wounds., Search Strategy: We sought relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register in March 2006 and in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and digital dissertations databases up to September 2006. In addition, we contacted companies, manufacturers and distributors for information to identify relevant trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of topical silver in the treatment of contaminated and infected acute or chronic wounds., Data Collection and Analysis: Eligibility of trials, assessment of trial quality and data extraction were undertaken by two authors independently. Disagreements were referred to a third author., Main Results: Three RCTs were identified, comprising a total of 847 participants. One trial compared silver-containing foam (Contreet) with hydrocellular foam (Allevyn) in patients with leg ulcers. The second trial compared a silver-containing alginate (Silvercel) with an alginate alone (Algosteril). The third trial compared a silver-containing foam dressing (Contreet)) with best local practice in patients with chronic wounds.The data from these trials show that silver-containing foam dressings did not significantly increase complete ulcer healing as compared with standard foam dressings or best local practice after up to four weeks of follow-up, although a greater reduction of ulcer size was observed with the silver-containing foam. The use of antibiotics was assessed in two trials, but no significant differences were found. Data on pain, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and costs were limited and showed no differences. Leakage occurred significantly less frequently in patients with leg ulcers and chronic wounds treated with a silver dressing than with a standard foam dressing or best local practice in one trial., Authors' Conclusions: Only three trials with a short follow-up duration were found. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of silver-containing dressings or topical agents for treatment of infected or contaminated chronic wounds.

Background: The best dressing for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention is unknown., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of dressings and topical agents on such wounds. Main endpoints were wound healing, pain, patient satisfaction, costs and hospital stay. Systematic methodological appraisal and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers., Results: Fourteen reports of 13 randomized clinical trials on dressings or topical agents (gauze, foam, bead, alginate and hydrocolloid dressing) for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention were identified; they were of weak methodological quality. In general, no statistically significant differences in wound healing were found for various dressing comparisons (11 of 13 trials). Patients experienced significantly more pain (four of six trials) and were less satisfied when gauze was used (three of six trials). Gauze was inexpensive, but its use was associated with significantly more nursing time than dressing with foam (two of three trials). No substantial differences in hospital stay were found (four of five trials)., Conclusions: Only small, poor-quality trials exist, rendering the evidence insufficient. Foam is best studied as an alternative to gauze and appears to be preferable in terms of pain reduction, patient satisfaction and nursing time., (Copyright (c) 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Many different wound dressings and topical applications are used to cover surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. It is not known whether these dressings heal wounds at different rates., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of dressings and topical agents on surgical wounds healing by secondary intention, Search Strategy: We sought relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases in March 2002., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention., Data Collection and Analysis: Eligibility for inclusion was confirmed by two reviewers who independently judged the methodological quality of the trials according to the Dutch Cochrane Centre list of factors relating to internal and external validity. Two reviewers summarised data from eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, any disagreements were referred to a third reviewer., Main Results: Fourteen reports of 13 RCTs on dressings or topical agents for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention were identified., Wound Healing: Whilst a single small trial of aloe vera supplementation vs gauze suggests delayed healing with aloe vera, the results of this trial are un interpretable since there was a large differential loss to follow up. A plaster cast applied to an amputation stump accelerated wound healing compared with elastic compression, WMD -25.60 days, 95% CI -49.08 to -2.12 days (1 trial). There were no statistically significant differences in healing for other dressing comparisons (e.g. gauze, foam, alginate; 11 trials). PAIN: Gauze was associated with significantly more pain for patients than other dressings (4 trials). PATIENT SATISFACTION: Patients treated with gauze were less satisfied compared with those receiving alternative dressings (3 trials)., Costs: Gauze is inexpensive but its use is associated with the use of significantly more nursing time than foam (2 trials). LENGTH OF HOSPITAL STAY: Four trials showed no difference in length of hospital stay. One trial found shorter hospital stay in people after amputation when plaster casts were applied compared with elastic compression (WMD -30.10 days; 95% CI -49.82 to -10.38)., Reviewers' Conclusions: We found only small, poor quality trials; the evidence is therefore insufficient to determine whether the choice of dressing or topical agent affects the healing of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Foam is best studied as an alternative for gauze and appears to be preferable as to pain reduction, patient satisfaction and nursing time.

Aims and objectives. To study the material and nursing costs and outcome of wound care at home comparing two dressing groups (occlusive vs. gauze-based) in surgical patients after hospital dismissal. Background. The large variety in dressing materials and lack of convincing evidence make the choice for optimum local wound care at home cumbersome. Occlusive wound dressings require a lower change frequency than gauze-based dressings, which appears especially useful for homecare patients and could save costs. Methods. We investigated a consecutive series of 76 patients with wounds, included in a randomized trial comparing occlusive vs. gauze dressings. Daily dressing change frequency, consumption of dressing materials and need for district nursing visits were recorded until wound closure by means of diaries and at outpatient visits. Costs were expressed as means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) after calculation using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results. Patient groups were similar regarding age, wound size and aetiology. Dressing change frequency in the occlusive group (median: 0.6/day) was significantly (p = 0.008) lower than in the gauze group (1.1/day). Mean daily material costs of modern dressings were euro5.31 vs. euro0.71 in the gauze group. Mean difference; euro4.60 (95% CI, euro2.68-euro6.83) while daily total (material plus nursing) costs showed no difference between the groups; mean euro2.86 (95% CI, euro-6.50-euro10.25). Wound healing in the gauze-treated group tended to be quicker than in the occlusive dressing group (medians: 30 vs. 48 days, respectively; log-rank p = 0.060). Conclusions. The use of occlusive dressings does not lead to a reduction in costs and wound healing time as compared with gauze dressings for surgical patients receiving wound care at home. Relevance to clinical practice. District nurses should reconsider using gauze-based dressings, particularly in surgical patients with exudating wounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by H. Vermeulen and D. Ubbink to a letter to the editor about their article "Systematic Review of Dressings and Topical Agents for Surgical Wounds Healing by Secondary Intention" is presented.