-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Debridement; Humans; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Wound Healing; Young Adult
PubMed: 36228111
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012032.pub3 -
British Journal of Community Nursing Dec 2014Maggot debridement therapy is used extensively in the UK in both community and hospital situations, but remains a potentially under-used modality in many wound care... (Review)
Review
Maggot debridement therapy is used extensively in the UK in both community and hospital situations, but remains a potentially under-used modality in many wound care markets. It promotes wound healing by performing three key processes: debridement, disinfection and growth-promoting activity. It can be used for the debridement of non-healing necrotic skin and soft tissue wounds, including pressure ulcers, venous stasis ulcers, neuropathic foot ulcers and non-healing traumatic of post-surgical wounds. With the increase in chronic diabetic foot wounds, maggot debridement therapy is a promising tool for health professionals dealing with difficult wounds. This article presents an overview of the research evidence surrounding maggot debridement therapy that serves as a guide to health professionals who may be users of this form of treatment now and in the future.
Topics: Animals; Debridement; Diptera; Humans; Larva; Skin Care; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25478859
DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S6 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Feb 2016Several methods of débridement of diabetic foot ulcers are currently used. The relative efficacy of these methods is not well established. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several methods of débridement of diabetic foot ulcers are currently used. The relative efficacy of these methods is not well established.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find the best available evidence for the effect of débridement on diabetic foot wound outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2011 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational comparative studies.
RESULTS
We identified 11 RCTs and three nonrandomized studies reporting on 800 patients. The risk of bias was moderate overall. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed that autolytic débridement significantly increased the healing rate (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-2.64). Meta-analysis of four studies (one RCT) showed that larval débridement reduced amputation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.88) but did not increase complete healing (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91). Surgical débridement was associated with shorter healing time compared with conventional wound care (one RCT). Insufficient evidence was found for comparisons between autolytic and larval débridement (one RCT), between ultrasound-guided and surgical débridement, and between hydrosurgical and surgical débridement.
CONCLUSIONS
The available literature supports the efficacy of several débridement methods, including surgical, autolytic, and larval débridement. Comparative effectiveness evidence between these methods and supportive evidence for other methods is of low quality due to methodologic limitations and imprecision. Hence, the choice of débridement method at the present time should be based on the available expertise, patient preferences, the clinical context and cost.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Debridement; Diabetic Foot; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26804366
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.002 -
Spine Aug 2023Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine a pooled incidence rate for deep surgical site infection (SSI) and compare available evidence for deep SSI management among instrumented spinal fusions.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Deep SSI is a common complication of instrumented spinal surgery associated with patient morbidity, poorer long-term outcomes, and higher health care costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched Medline and Embase and included studies with an adult patient population undergoing posterior instrumented spinal fusion of the thoracic, lumbar, or sacral spine, with a reported outcome of deep SSI. The primary outcome was the incidence of deep SSI. Secondary outcomes included persistent deep SSI after initial debridement, mean number of debridements, and microbiology. The subsequent meta-analysis combined outcomes for surgical site infection using a random-effects model and quantified heterogeneity using the χ 2 test and the I2 statistic. In addition, a qualitative analysis of management strategies was reported.
RESULTS
Of 9087 potentially eligible studies, we included 54 studies (37 comparative and 17 noncomparative). The pooled SSI incidence rate was 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.9%) based on 209,347 index procedures. Up to 25% of patients (95% CI, 16.8%-35.3%), had a persistent infection. These patients require an average of 1.4 (range: 0.8-1.9) additional debridements. Infecting organisms were commonly gram-positive, and among them, staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent (46%). Qualitative analysis suggests implant retention, especially for early deep SSI management. Evidence was limited for other management strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled incidence rate of deep SSI post-thoracolumbar spinal surgery is 1.5%. The rate of recurrence and repeat debridement is at least 12%, up to 25%. Persistent infection is a significant risk, highlighting the need for standardized treatment protocols. Our review further demonstrates heterogeneity in management strategies. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to develop better evidence around deep SSI incidence and management in the instrumented thoracolumbar adult spinal fusion population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Incidence; Persistent Infection; Spine; Staphylococcal Infections; Spinal Fusion; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37163651
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004713 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2017Enzymatic debridement with collagenase is a technique that is commonly used in clinical practice. This systematic review examines the effect of collagenase on all kinds... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Enzymatic debridement with collagenase is a technique that is commonly used in clinical practice. This systematic review examines the effect of collagenase on all kinds of wounds, compared to an alternative therapy, on wound healing, wound bed characteristics, cost-effectiveness and the occurrence of adverse events. We conducted a systematic literature search on available literature in Cochrane databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all randomised controlled trials obtained involving collagenase of all kinds of wounds based on inclusion criteria. Of the 1411 citations retrieved, 22 studies reported outcomes with the use of collagenase either for wound healing or wound debridement. Results support the use of collagenase for enzymatic debridement in pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and in conjunction with topical antibiotics for burns. However, studies presented a high risk of bias. Risk ratio of developing an adverse event related to collagenase versus the alternative treatment was statistically significant (for 10 studies, RR: 1·79, 95% CI 1·24-2·59, I =0%, P = 0·002). There is very limited data on the effect of collagenase as an enzymatic debridement technique on wounds. More independant research and adequate reporting of adverse events are warranted.
Topics: Burns; Collagenases; Debridement; Humans; Skin Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28440050
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12760 -
World Journal of Surgery Apr 2015Few guidelines exist for the initial management of wounds in disaster settings. As wounds sustained are often contaminated, there is a high risk of further complications... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Few guidelines exist for the initial management of wounds in disaster settings. As wounds sustained are often contaminated, there is a high risk of further complications from infection, both local and systemic. Healthcare workers with little to no surgical training often provide early wound care, and where resources and facilities are also often limited, and clear appropriate guidance is needed for early wound management.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review focusing on the nature of wounds in disaster situations, and the outcomes of wound management in recent disasters. We then presented the findings to an international consensus panel with a view to formulating a guideline for the initial management of wounds by first responders and subsequent healthcare personnel as they deploy.
RESULTS
We included 62 studies in the review that described wound care challenges in a diverse range of disasters, and reported high rates of wound infection with multiple causative organisms. The panel defined a guideline in which the emphasis is on not closing wounds primarily but rather directing efforts toward cleaning, debridement, and dressing wounds in preparation for delayed primary closure, or further exploration and management by skilled surgeons.
CONCLUSION
Good wound care in disaster settings, as outlined in this article, can be achieved with relatively simple measures, and have important mortality and morbidity benefits.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bandages; Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Crush Syndrome; Debridement; Disasters; Documentation; First Aid; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Infection; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25085100
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2663-3 -
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Dec 2023Radiofrequency has seen an increase in use in orthopedics including cartilage lesion debridement in the hip and knee as well as many applications in arthroscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Radiofrequency has seen an increase in use in orthopedics including cartilage lesion debridement in the hip and knee as well as many applications in arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety and usage of radiofrequency in the shoulder.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (international registry) and followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Embase and PubMed were searched using: "shoulder," "rotator cuff," "biceps," "acromion" AND "monopolar," "bipolar," "ablation," "coblation," and "radiofrequency ablation." The title and abstract review were performed independently. Any discrepancies were addressed through open discussion.
RESULTS
A total of 63 studies were included. Radiofrequency is currently utilized in impingement syndrome, fracture fixation, instability, nerve injury, adhesive capsulitis, postoperative stiffness, and rotator cuff disease. Adverse events, namely superficial burns, are limited to case reports and case series, with higher-level evidence demonstrating safe use when used below the temperature threshold. Bipolar radiofrequency may decrease operative time and decrease the cost per case.
CONCLUSIONS
Shoulder radiofrequency has a wide scope of application in various shoulder pathologies. Shoulder radiofrequency is safe; however, requires practitioners to be cognizant of the potential for thermal burn injuries. Bipolar radiofrequency may represent a more efficacious and economic treatment modality. Safety precautions have been executed by institutions to cut down patient complications from shoulder radiofrequency. Future research is required to determine what measures can be taken to further minimize the risk of thermal burns.
PubMed: 36330719
DOI: 10.5397/cise.2022.01067 -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Mar 2017Literature on open fracture infections has focused primarily on long bones, with limited guidelines available for open hand fractures. In this study, we systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Literature on open fracture infections has focused primarily on long bones, with limited guidelines available for open hand fractures. In this study, we systematically review the available hand surgery literature to determine infection rates and the effect of debridement timing and antibiotic administration. Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane computerized literature databases and manual bibliography searches were performed. Descriptive/quantitative data were extracted, and a meta-analysis of different patient cohorts and treatment modalities was performed to compare infection rates. The initial search yielded 61 references. Twelve articles (4 prospective, 8 retrospective) on open hand fractures were included (1669 open fractures). There were 77 total infections (4.6%): 61 (4.4%) of 1391 patients received preoperative antibiotics and 16 (9.4%) of 171 patients did not receive antibiotics. In 7 studies (1106 open fractures), superficial infections (requiring oral antibiotics only) accounted for 86%, whereas deep infections (requiring operative debridement) accounted for 14%. Debridement within 6 hours of injury (2 studies, 188 fractures) resulted in a 4.2% infection rate, whereas debridement within 12 hours of injury (1 study, 193 fractures) resulted in a 3.6% infection rate. Two studies found no correlation of infection and timing to debridement. Overall, the infection rate after open hand fracture remains relatively low. Correlation does exist between the administration of antibiotics and infection, but the majority of infections can be treated with antibiotics alone. Timing of debridement, has not been shown to alter infection rates.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Debridement; Drug Administration Schedule; Fractures, Open; Hand Injuries; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors
PubMed: 28344521
DOI: 10.1177/1558944716643294 -
The Journal of Knee Surgery Aug 2014Irrigation and debridement (I&D) has been described as a possible option to eradicate early postoperative periprosthetic hip and knee infections, as well as late, acute,... (Review)
Review
Irrigation and debridement (I&D) has been described as a possible option to eradicate early postoperative periprosthetic hip and knee infections, as well as late, acute, and hematogenous ones. Still, the literature fails to uniquely assess the effectiveness of this procedure and often provides conflicting evidence. To reconcile this difference, a systematic review of the available literature from 1970 to 2013 was undertaken. Fifteen articles, for a total of 796 patients, met the inclusion criteria; the average success rate was 44.9 and 52% after a single or repeated I&D procedures, respectively, at an average of 4 years follow-up. Despite the methodological differences and the heterogeneity of the material reviewed, this study demonstrates that this procedure only attains a relatively low success rate of infection eradication, depending on when patients are selected for surgical intervention according to the timeframe of their symptoms.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Debridement; Humans; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Reoperation; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 24752923
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1373736 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue may expedite wound healing. There are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue may expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods of debridement available, but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. To identify additional studies, we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with a surgical wound that required debridement, and reported time to complete wound debridement or time to wound healing, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment using the RoB 1 tool, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth update, we identified one additional study for inclusion. The review now includes six studies, with 265 participants, aged three to 91 years. Five studies were published between 1979 and 1990 and one published in 2014. The studies were carried out in hospital settings in China, Denmark, Belgium, and the UK. Six studies provided six comparisons. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, it was not appropriate to conduct meta-analyses. Four studies evaluated the effectiveness of dextranomer beads/paste; however, each study used a different comparator (Eusol-soaked dressings, 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone, 0.1% chloramine-soaked packs, and silicone foam elastomer dressing). One study compared streptokinase/streptodornase with saline-soaked dressings, and one compared endoscopic surgical debridement with conventional 'open' surgical debridement. Five studies reported time to complete debridement (reported as time to a clean wound bed) and three reported time to complete healing. One study reported effect estimates (surgical debridement via endoscopy versus surgical debridement) for time to a clean wound bed and time to complete wound healing, and it was possible to calculate effect estimates for one other study (dextranomer paste versus silicone foam elastomer) for time to complete wound healing. For the other four studies that did not report effect estimates, it was not possible to calculate time to a clean wound bed or time to complete wound healing due to missing variance and participant exclusions. None of the included studies reported outcomes pertaining to proportion of wounds completely healed, rate of reduction in wound size, rate of infection, or quality of life. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Dextranomer paste/beads (autolytic debridement) compared with four different comparators Four studies compared dextranomer paste or beads with Eusol-soaked gauze (20 participants), 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone (40 participants), 0.1% chloramine-soaked dressings (28 participants), or silicone foam elastomer (50 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no clear difference in time to a clean wound bed between dextranomer beads and Eusol gauze. The study did not report adverse events. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed between dextranomer paste and 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone gauze. There was low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. There may be a difference in time until the wounds were clinically clean and time to complete wound healing between dextranomer paste and 0.1% chloramine favouring 0.1% chloramine, but we are very uncertain. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to complete healing between dextranomer beads and silicone foam elastomer. The study did not report adverse events. Streptokinase/streptodornase solution (enzymatic) compared with saline-soaked dressings One study (21 participants) compared enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed or secondary suture between streptokinase/streptodornase and saline-soaked dressings. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. Surgical debridement via endoscopic ('keyhole') surgery compared with surgical debridement by 'open' surgery (the wound is opened using a scalpel) One study (106 participants) reported time to complete wound healing and time to a clean wound bed. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be a reduction in time to complete wound healing and very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed with surgical debridement via endoscopy compared to 'open' surgical debridement. The study did not report adverse events. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty for all outcomes. Five included studies were published before 1991 and investigated treatments that are no longer available. Worldwide production of dextranomer products has been discontinued, except for dextranomer paste, which is currently only available in South Africa. Furthermore, Eusol, used in one study as the comparator to dextranomer, is rarely used due to risk of harmful effects on healthy tissue and the enzymatic agent streptokinase/streptodornase is no longer available worldwide.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for the effects of different methods of debridement on complete wound debridement and healing of surgical wounds remains unclear. Adequately powered, methodologically robust RCTs evaluating contemporary debridement interventions for surgical wounds are needed to guide clinical decision-making.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Bandages; Bias; Debridement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 38712723
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub5