Influence of occlusive and impregnated gauze dressings on incisional healing: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Prospective evaluation of occlusive hydrocolloid dressing versus conventional gauze dressing regarding the healing effect after abdominal operations: randomized controlled trial. To dress or not to dress surgical wounds? Patients' attitudes to wound care after major abdominal operations. [Transparent adhesive tape as postoperative dressing. Randomized, clinical study for comparison with a conventional dressing technic]. Wound dressing in major head and neck cancer surgery: a prospective randomized study of gauze dressing vs sterile vaseline ointment. Tegadern versus gauze dressing in breast surgery. Effect of three wound dressings on infection, healing comfort, and cost in patients with sternotomy wounds: a randomized trial. Effects of occlusive and conventional gauze dressings on incisional healing after abdominal operations. Exposure of the wound--a safe economy in the NHS. Moist wound healing compared with standard care of treatment of primary closed vascular surgical wounds: a prospective randomized controlled study. Choice of dressing has a major impact on blistering and healing outcomes in orthopaedic patients. A comparison of three wound dressings in patients undergoing heart surgery.
After elective surgery, 28 patients with 40 wounds were enrolled in a controlled clinical study to assess the effects of two different dressings on incisional healing. Patients served as their own control with one-half of each incision covered with an impregnated gauze (Xeroform) and the other half of the incision covered with a thin occlusive hydrocolloid dressing (DuoDerm Extra Thin CGF). All wounds were evaluated 2 to 3 days, 7 to 10 days, 4 weeks, and 7 months postoperatively. None of the incisions segments showed any evidence of infection. At the time of suture removal, the hydrocolloid dressing's ability to contain exudate, protect the wound, and facilitate mobility and personal hygiene were rated higher compared with the gauze-type dressing (p < 0.001, for all variables). At the 4-week visit, both the patient and the surgeon rated the scar segments covered with the hydrocolloid dressing better with respect to color, evenness, and suppleness (p < or = 0.04, for all variables). These differences were no longer apparent 7 months after surgery. To compare occlusive hydrocolloid dressing (OHD; Karayahesive) and gauze dressing (GD) with regard to the cost and incidence of wound infection after abdominal surgery.
                A total of 134 patients who underwent incisions were randomized to have their wounds dressed with either OHD or GD. OHD was left on until the sutures were removed, and GD was changed everyday postoperatively. The cost calculations represent the number of dressings required for each treatment group as determined by the frequency of required dressing changes and cost per dressing.
                There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed or the incidence of infection. OHD was less expensive and complicated than GD, which needed to be changed everyday (p < 0.0001).
                The results suggest that OHD is less expensive to use than GD, and the risk of wound infection is not increased compared to GD. To find out what patients' attitudes were to wound care after abdominal operations to ensure that patients' own views were not violated by introducing a new method of wound care.
                Randomised study.
                University hospital, Sweden.
                68 consecutive patients operated for benign gastrointestinal disease.
                Patients were randomised to have their abdominal wounds dressed or exposed. On their last day in hospital their attitudes were assessed by visual analogue score and questionnaire.
                Attitudes to wound care.
                There were no differences between the two groups in any of the variables studied. The visual analogue scores for postoperative pain were higher than had been anticipated.
                Most patients do not mind whether their wounds are covered with a dressing or not after abdominal operations. To evaluate the effect of a thin, transparent, adhesive and elastic polyurethane drape permeable only to gas and water vapor molecules but not to bacteria in comparison to a conventional drape for postoperative dressings, a randomized trial was conducted in 90 male and female patients. 44 patients had the transparent adhesive drape and 46 a conventional dressing. Both groups were reasonably well matched according to age, sex, height, weight and type of operation. There was no difference in healing of skin wounds. But reddening around the stitches was seen more often in patients with the conventional dressing than in those with the polyurethane drape (p less than 0.05). Surprisingly, most of the patients with the transparent drape (42 of 44) accepted it. The transparent adhesive drape was found to be much less expensive than the conventional dressing. A total of 207 patients were randomized in a prospective comparative study of standard gauze dressing vs sterile vaseline ointment. 179 patients were evaluable. All patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis. The two groups (86 standard and 93 vaseline) were comparable as far as age (mean, 57 yr; range, 21-84), genders (155 males/24 females), weight (mean, 66 kg; range, 40-69), type of surgery, previous or concomitant anticancer treatment. Severity of surgery was identical, as was the severity of cancer, in the two groups. Wound infection within 20 days of surgery occurred in 31.2% (29/93) of the vaseline group and 24.4% (21/86) in the standard group (NSS). Bacteremia occurred in three patients from the vaseline group and in four patients from the standard group. Bronchopneumonia occurred in 10 patients from the vaseline group and 14 patients in the standard group. The spectrum of microorganisms recovered was similar in the two groups. The need for antimicrobial treatment (empiric or for documented infections) within 20 days after surgery was 34.4% (32/93) in the vaseline group and 36.0% (31/86) in the standard group. The median delay to infection (range in days) in the vaseline group was 9 (5-15) for wound and 6 (1-12) for bronchopneumonia. For the standard group the corresponding delays were 8 (4-15) and 7 (2-19). Vaseline dressing was not associated with an increased risk of infection as compared to the standard gauze dressing. nan To compare three dressing types in terms of their ability to protect against infection and promote healing, patient comfort, and cost-effectiveness.
                Prospective, randomized controlled trial.
                Major metropolitan, academically affiliated, tertiary referral center.
                Seven hundred thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive a dry absorbent dressing (n = 243) [Primapore; Smith & Nephew; Sydney, NSW, Australia], a hydrocolloid dressing (n = 267) [Duoderm Thin ConvaTec; Mulgrave, VIC, Australia], or a hydroactive dressing (n = 227) [Opsite; Smith & Nephew] in the operating theater on skin closure.
                There was no difference in the rate of wound infection or wound healing between treatment groups. The Primapore dressing was the most comfortable and cost-effective dressing option for the sternotomy wound. Duoderm Thin dressings were associated with increased wound exudate (p < 0.001), poor dressing integrity (p < 0.001), more frequent dressing changes (p < 0.001), more discomfort with removal (p < 0.05), and increased cost (p < 0.001).
                In the context of no additional benefit for the prevention of wound infection or the rate of wound healing for any of the three dressing products examined, dry absorbent dressings are the most comfortable and cost-effective products for sternotomy wounds following cardiac surgery. To compare the effect of occlusive (Comfeel) and conventional (Mepore) dressings on the healing of incisional wounds after abdominal operations.
                Prospective randomised study.
                Laboratory and teaching hospital, Denmark.
                73 patients who underwent clean operations requiring incisions longer than 5 cm between August 1993 and August 1995 were randomised to have their wounds dressed with either Comfeel or Mepore.
                Comfeel was left on until the sutures were removed, and Mepore was removed 2 days postoperatively.
                Infection, adherence, leakage, and cosmetic appearance three months later.
                36 patients were randomised to have Comfeel and 37 to have Mepore. 29 patients were withdrawn from the study (20 having Mepore and 9 having Comfeel) leaving 26, and 17 for analysis, respectively. Wound infections developed in 1 patient in the Comfeel group and 5 in the Mepores group (p = 0.2). There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed, the incidence of leakage, or loosening of the dressing from the skin. Comfeel adhered securely to the skin and remained more or less transparent until sutures were removed. It remained totally transparent in 23 (64%), and no dressing became totally opaque. There were no differences in cosmetic appearance after three months. We had the impression that patients who had Comfeel were more comfortable and found it easier to mobilise and carry out their daily activities.
                Occlusive dressings stay in place and stay transparent, and do not increase the risk of wound infection. They may even be more comfortable. they are a reasonable alternative to conventional dressings. nan This study was a randomized-controlled trial comparing the standard type of dry dressing, Mepore, with moist wound healing, using a hydrofiber dressing, Aquacel, in primary closed wounds after vascular surgery. The endpoints were patient comfort, cost-effectiveness, infections, wound complications, and length of hospital stay. One hundred and sixty patients were randomized to receive either Mepore or Aquacel dressing. There was no significant difference in patient comfort between the two groups, but a higher cost in the Aquacel group despite significantly fewer changes of dressings in these patients. No difference in the infection rate (13% vs. 11%, p=0.73), length of hospital stay, or wound complications was noted between the two groups. We conclude that although the Aquacel dressing needed significantly fewer changes than the conventional dressing, this did not influence the patient comfort. Moreover, the traditional dressing scheme was significantly less expensive. To investigate the effect of three postoperative dressings on orthopaedic wound healing.
                Three hundred orthopaedic patients were divided into three treatment groups and allocated to management with one of three dressings: Primapore, Tegaderm with pad, and OpSite Post-Op. Staff completed a questionnaire to evaluate the wound progression. Outcome measures were the presence of infection, blistering and the number of dressing changes required.
                There was a significantly lower incidence of blistering with OpSite Post-Op (6%) than Tegaderm with pad (16%) and Primapore (24%) (p<0.001). Patients in the OpSite Post-Op group had the lowest exudate levels.
                Dressings that employ a clear film and have a high moisture vapour transmission rate have been shown to reduce both the rate of blistering and wound discharge. The additional expense inherent in using such dressings may, in reality, prove cost-effective because of the reduced need for dressings changes and the subsequent earlier discharge of these patients from hospital with an uncomplicated wound. Two hundred fifty patients undergoing heart surgery were randomized in a prospective comparative study of a semiocclusive hydroactive wound dressing, an occlusive hydrocolloid dressing, and a conventional absorbent dressing. The wounds were evaluated during the 4 weeks after surgery. Color photographs were used for a blind evaluation of wound healing. The conventional absorbent dressing was more effective in wound healing, compared with the hydroactive dressing. Further, there were fewer skin changes and less redness in the wounds with the conventional dressing than with the hydroactive dressing; the differences were not significant with the hydrocolloid dressing. The conventional dressing was less painful to remove than the hydroactive and hydrocolloid dressings. More frequent dressing changes, however, were needed when using the conventional dressing. Despite this, it was the least expensive alternative.
At present, there is no evidence to suggest that covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI or that any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the rates of SSI, improving scarring, pain control, patient acceptability or ease of dressing removal. Most trials in this review were small and of poor quality at high or unclear risk of bias. However, based on the current evidence, we conclude that decisions on wound dressing should be based on dressing costs and the symptom management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.