A Randomized Control Trial Comparing Transparent Film Dressings and Conventional Occlusive Dressings for Elective Surgical Procedures.
Dressings
Incision
Occlusive
Surgical site infection
Transparent
Journal
Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences
ISSN: 1857-9655
Titre abrégé: Open Access Maced J Med Sci
Pays: North Macedonia
ID NLM: 101662294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2019
15 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
30
06
2019
revised:
21
07
2019
accepted:
22
07
2019
entrez:
18
12
2019
pubmed:
18
12
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Surgical site infection is one of the major health-care-associated problems causing substantial morbidity and mortality and constituting a financial burden on hospitals as well. The wound management is one of the crucial evidence-based strategies in the reduction of surgical site infection rates. To study the impact of standardisation of transparent semipermeable dressing procedure on the rate of surgical site infection in comparison with conventional dressing in clean and clean-contaminated surgeries. The study included 100 patients who were admitted to surgical wards in Cairo university hospitals, for clean and clean-contaminated operations, in the period from February 2017 to August 2017. Immunocompromised and uncontrolled diabetic patients were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups; in the first group, patients wounds were covered using transparent semipermeable dressing, while the second group patients' wounds were covered using conventional occlusive gauze dressing. Patients were followed up for criteria of infection every other day during the first week then at two weeks, three weeks and four weeks. In clean and clean-contaminated operations, the transparent dressing group showed a significantly lesser rate of surgical site infection at (2%), compared with the conventional occlusive gauze dressing group with a surgical site infection rate of (14%) (p-value of 0.02). The transparent semipermeable dressing is effective in reducing surgical site infection rate in clean and clean-contaminated operations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection is one of the major health-care-associated problems causing substantial morbidity and mortality and constituting a financial burden on hospitals as well. The wound management is one of the crucial evidence-based strategies in the reduction of surgical site infection rates.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To study the impact of standardisation of transparent semipermeable dressing procedure on the rate of surgical site infection in comparison with conventional dressing in clean and clean-contaminated surgeries.
METHODS
METHODS
The study included 100 patients who were admitted to surgical wards in Cairo university hospitals, for clean and clean-contaminated operations, in the period from February 2017 to August 2017. Immunocompromised and uncontrolled diabetic patients were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups; in the first group, patients wounds were covered using transparent semipermeable dressing, while the second group patients' wounds were covered using conventional occlusive gauze dressing. Patients were followed up for criteria of infection every other day during the first week then at two weeks, three weeks and four weeks.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In clean and clean-contaminated operations, the transparent dressing group showed a significantly lesser rate of surgical site infection at (2%), compared with the conventional occlusive gauze dressing group with a surgical site infection rate of (14%) (p-value of 0.02).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The transparent semipermeable dressing is effective in reducing surgical site infection rate in clean and clean-contaminated operations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31844447
doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.809
pii: OAMJMS-7-2844
pmc: PMC6901868
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2844-2850Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2019 Moushira Hosny Ezzelarab Sayed, Omar Nouh, Ahmed Nabil Ahmed, Mervat Gaber Anany, Nevine Gamal El Rachidi, Ahmed Safwat Salem.
Références
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015 Oct;16(5):518-22
pubmed: 26114551
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;27(8):817-24
pubmed: 16874641
Adv Prev Med. 2015;2015:357087
pubmed: 26550494
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2006 Dec;7(6):555-65
pubmed: 17233574
Am J Infect Control. 2005 Feb;33(1):6-10
pubmed: 15685128
Asian J Surg. 2008 Jan;31(1):1-5
pubmed: 18334461
Eur J Surg. 1998 Mar;164(3):179-83
pubmed: 9562277
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 21;(5):CD011277
pubmed: 25994366
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005 May;26(5):442-8
pubmed: 15954481
Br J Clin Pract. 1984 Apr;38(4):149-52
pubmed: 6722002
Nurs Times. 2012 Jul 3-9;108(27):12-4
pubmed: 22860371
J Wound Care. 2005 Jan;14(1):27-9
pubmed: 15656462
Arch Surg. 2008 Oct;143(10):950-5
pubmed: 18936373
JAMA. 1987 Nov 6;258(17):2396-403
pubmed: 3118061
J Hosp Infect. 1991 Feb;17(2):83-94
pubmed: 1674265
Bone Joint Res. 2013 Mar 01;2(3):58-65
pubmed: 23610703
JAMA Surg. 2017 Aug 1;152(8):784-791
pubmed: 28467526
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 May;18(5):516-525
pubmed: 29452941
Clin Dermatol. 1994 Jan-Mar;12(1):121-7
pubmed: 8180934