Hyperbaric oxygen therapy: solution for difficult to heal acute wounds? Systematic review.

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.

Dilemmas in measuring and using pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence: an international consensus.

Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data are increasingly being used as indicators of quality of care and the efficacy of pressure ulcer prevention protocols. In some health care systems, the occurrence of pressure ulcers is also being linked to reimbursement. The wider use of these epidemiological analyses necessitates that all those involved in pressure ulcer care and prevention have a clear understanding of the definitions and implications of prevalence and incidence rates. In addition, an appreciation of the potential difficulties in conducting prevalence and incidence studies and the possible explanations for differences between studies are important. An international group of experts has worked to produce a consensus document that aims to delineate and discuss the important issues involved, and to provide guidance on approaches to conducting and interpreting pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence studies. The group's main findings are summarised in this paper.

[Antiseptics to prevent or treat wound infections; myths and evidence]. / Antiseptica ter preventie of behandeling van wondinfecties: mythes en evidence.

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.

Occlusive vs gauze dressings for local wound care in surgical patients: a randomized clinical trial.

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.

Inter- and intra-observer (dis)agreement among nurses and doctors to classify colour and exudation of open surgical wounds according to the Red-Yellow-Black scheme.

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.