Exploring the definition of surgical wound dehiscence in literature: a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND

Surgical wound dehiscence (SWD) is interpreted differently amongst healthcare professionals due to a lack of uniformity in definitions in literature. Inconsistent defining impedes accurate diagnosis, appropriate care, intercollegiate consultation, and benchmarking. Despite the introduction of a consensus-driven definition by the World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) in 2018, its application in literature and clinical practice remains unclear.

A OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to systematically explore the literature to identify existing SWD definitions, provide an overview, identify knowledge gaps, and extract articles that reference the WUWHS definition.

METHODS

This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. A systematic literature search was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Eligibility screening and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers.

RESULTS

This study included 34 articles: 28 systematic reviews, two randomized clinical trials, three retrospective studies, and one book chapter. SWD was defined in different ways, such as "breakdown/disruption of the surgical wound" (n = 17), "separation/splitting apart of the wound edges" (n = 13), "gaping/re-opened wound" (n = 7), mechanical failure (n = 2), or infection (n = 1). Other studies defined SWD in relation to its depth (skin layers involved) or length over the incision, both complete and partial (n = 9). One study referenced the WUWHS definition.

CONCLUSION

Existing literature demonstrates a substantial variety in defining SWD, and little adoption of the WUWHS definition following its introduction in 2018. Uniform use of the definition should be considered as this will improve the quality of care.