Suppr超能文献

清洁及清洁-污染手术切口一期缝合后早期与延迟拆除敷料的比较

Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds.

作者信息

Toon Clare D, Ramamoorthy Rajarajan, Davidson Brian R, Gurusamy Kurinchi Selvan

机构信息

Public Health, West Sussex County Council, 1st Floor, The Grange, Tower Street, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, PO19 1QT.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 5(9):CD010259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010259.pub2.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

大多数外科手术都需要切开皮肤,以便外科医生能够触及更深层的组织或器官。大多数手术伤口在手术结束时会完全闭合(一期缝合)。外科医生会用敷料或胶带覆盖闭合的手术伤口。敷料可作为一种物理屏障,在皮肤恢复连续性(约48小时内)之前保护伤口,并吸收伤口渗出液,保持伤口干燥清洁,防止外部环境的细菌污染。一些研究发现,某些敷料营造的潮湿环境可加速伤口愈合,尽管也有其他研究认为潮湿环境可能不利,因为过多的渗出液会导致伤口及周围健康组织浸渍(软化和恶化)。因此,术后48小时后使用敷料的效用存在争议。

目的

评估在48小时内永久去除覆盖闭合手术切口部位的敷料(早期去除敷料)或在手术48小时后永久去除敷料并允许期间更换敷料(延迟去除敷料)对手术部位感染的益处和风险。

检索方法

2013年7月,我们检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane伤口组专业注册库;Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆);效果评价文摘数据库(DARE)(Cochrane图书馆);Ovid MEDLINE;Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引引文);Ovid EMBASE;以及EBSCO CINAHL。我们还检索了纳入试验的参考文献,以识别更多可能相关的试验。

选择标准

两位综述作者独立确定纳入研究。我们纳入了所有针对任何年龄和性别的人群进行的随机临床试验(RCT),这些人群接受了外科手术,伤口已闭合并应用了敷料。我们仅纳入比较早期与延迟去除敷料的试验。我们排除了纳入有污染或脏污伤口人群的试验。我们还排除了半随机研究及其他研究设计。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立提取了关于试验参与者特征、试验偏倚风险以及每个试验结局的数据。我们计算了二分类结局的风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI),以及连续性结局的均值差(MD)及95%CI。我们使用RevMan 5软件进行这些计算。

主要结果

确定了四项试验纳入本综述。所有试验均存在较高的偏倚风险。三项试验为本综述提供了信息。总体而言,本综述纳入了280例接受计划性手术的患者。在这三项试验中,参与者被随机分为早期去除敷料组(术后48小时内去除伤口敷料)(n = 140)或延迟去除敷料组(伤口敷料在48小时后继续使用)(n = 140)。早期去除敷料组和延迟去除敷料组在30天内发生浅表手术部位感染的患者比例(RR 0.64;95%CI 0.32至1.28)、30天内浅表伤口裂开的患者比例(RR 2.00;95%CI 0.19至21.16)或30天内严重不良事件的患者比例(RR 0.83;95%CI 0.28至2.51)方面均无统计学显著差异。报告此结局的试验中,所有参与者均未发生深部伤口感染或深部伤口裂开。没有试验报告生活质量。在唯一报告了这些结局的试验中,早期去除敷料组的住院时间显著更短(MD -2.00天;95%CI -2.82至 -1.18),治疗总成本显著更低(MD -36.00欧元;95%CI -59.81至 -12.19)。

作者结论

对于清洁或清洁-污染的手术伤口,早期去除敷料似乎对结局没有不利影响。然而,应注意的是,支持这一说法的点估计基于三项小型随机对照试验的极低质量证据,且该估计周围的置信区间较宽。根据一项小型随机对照试验的极低质量证据,与术后48小时后用伤口敷料覆盖手术伤口相比,早期去除敷料可能导致住院时间显著缩短,成本显著降低。有必要开展更多偏倚风险低的随机对照试验,以研究在不同类型手术和污染程度下术后48小时后是否需要使用敷料,以及抗生素治疗是否会影响结局。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验