Gbolahan Olalere Omoyosola, Ogunmuyiwa Stella Amiede, Osinaike Babatunde Babasola
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Ibadan/University College Hospital, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria, e-mail:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Federal Medical Centre Abeokuta, Ogun, Nigeria.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015 Jul 1;16(7):554-8. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1721.
Cover wound dressings are regarded as important postoperative care following surgical intervention. Opinions differ on whether the cleft lip repair wound should be routinely covered by dressings or not. Therefore, a well designed randomized controlled trial is required to determine if routine cover dressing offers a better outcome.
The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of wound and cosmetic appearance of cleft lip repair in a randomized controlled trial between cover wound and no wound dressing groups.
Forty consecutive patients requiring cleft lip repair were randomized prospectively to receive the traditional wound dressing cover (n = 20) or had the wound left exposed without any dressing cover (n = 20), after the completion of cleft wound closure. The main outcome measures were wound infection and dehiscence rates in the two groups, in addition to the scar cosmetic outcomes.
The two groups were comparable in terms of age and sex. The incidence of wound infection was 0% (0/20) in cover dressing group as compared to 5% (1/20) in no cover dressing group (p = 0.31). No statistical significant differences in the wound dehiscence rate between the wounds that received dressing (15%) and those with no dressing (20%) were observed. The mean diameter of scar at the 5th to 8th week review appointments was almost similar between the group with dressing (3.29 ± 1.26 mm) and no dressing (3.62 ± 1.28 mm). The patient reported outcome in relation to the cosmetic appearance of the scar after repair was similar in the two groups.
There was no difference in the main outcome measures between the group that had cover dressing and those with exposed wound after cleft lip repair surgery. This study demonstrates that dressing of cleft repair wound may be unnecessary.
伤口覆盖敷料被视为手术干预后的重要术后护理措施。对于唇裂修复伤口是否应常规覆盖敷料，存在不同观点。因此，需要进行一项设计良好的随机对照试验来确定常规覆盖敷料是否能带来更好的结果。
本研究的目的是在一项随机对照试验中，比较覆盖伤口组和不使用伤口敷料组唇裂修复的伤口结果和外观。
40例连续需要唇裂修复的患者在完成唇裂伤口闭合后，被前瞻性随机分为接受传统伤口敷料覆盖组（n = 20）或伤口不覆盖任何敷料组（n = 20）。主要观察指标为两组的伤口感染和裂开率，以及瘢痕外观结果。
两组在年龄和性别方面具有可比性。覆盖敷料组的伤口感染发生率为0%（0/20），而无覆盖敷料组为5%（1/20）（p = 0.31）。观察到接受敷料的伤口（15%）和未接受敷料的伤口（20%）之间的伤口裂开率无统计学显著差异。在第5至8周复查时，敷料组（3.29±1.26 mm）和未敷料组（3.62±1.28 mm）的瘢痕平均直径几乎相似。两组患者对修复后瘢痕外观的报告结果相似。
唇裂修复手术后，覆盖敷料组和伤口暴露组的主要观察指标没有差异。本研究表明唇裂修复伤口可能无需使用敷料。
