Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.

Early Versus Delayed Dressing Removal After Primary Closure Of Clean And Clean-contaminated Surgical Wounds.

Clare D Toon, Rajarajan Ramamoorthy, Brian R. Davidson, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Published 2013 · Medicine
Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
BACKGROUND Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection. SEARCH METHODS In July 2013 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations. MAIN RESULTS Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.



This paper is referenced by
Prevención de la infección de sitio quirúrgico:: análisis y revisión narrativa de las guías de práctica clínica
F. J. Gómez Romero (2017)
10.2147/IJWH.S98876
Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges
Sivan Zuarez-Easton (2017)
10.1186/s13756-019-0638-8
APSIC guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections
Moi Lin Ling (2019)
10.1080/14656566.2019.1574753
Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for the treatment of infections following open-heart surgery
Daniele Roberto Giacobbe (2019)
10.15441/ceem.18.018
Updates in emergency department laceration management
Karalynn Otterness (2019)
Effect of Early Versus Delayed Exposure of Caesarean Section Wound on Surgical Site Infections and Patients' Comfort Level
Hanan K. Elsayed (2020)
10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.029
American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update.
Kristen A. Ban (2017)
10.1002/14651858.CD010075.pub3
Early versus delayed post-operative bathing or showering to prevent wound complications.
Clare D Toon (2015)
10.1053/j.jfas.2016.10.016
American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons® Clinical Consensus Statement: Perioperative Management
Andrew J. Meyr (2017)
10.1155/2016/9528572
Effectiveness of a Short-Term Treatment of Oxygen-Ozone Therapy into Healing in a Posttraumatic Wound
Irene Degli Agosti (2016)
A narrative review
Henrik Husted (2014)
Effects of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Perivascular Groin Infections after Vascular Surgery. Wound Healing, Cost-Effectiveness and Patient-Reported Outcome.
Christina Monsen (2016)
10.1097/OGX.0000000000000102
Surgical Site Infections in Gynecology
Jonathan D. Black (2014)
10.3109/17453674.2014.971661
Traditions and myths in hip and knee arthroplasty
Henrik Husted (2014)
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar