Debridement for surgical wounds

Debridement for surgical wounds

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 To identify additional studies, we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports.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.

A surfactant polymer wound dressing protects human keratinocytes from inducible necroptosis

Chronic wounds show necroptosis from which keratinocytes must be protected to enable appropriate wound re-epithelialization and closure. Poloxamers, a class of synthetic triblock copolymers, are known to be effective against plasma membrane damage (PMD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a specific poloxamer, surfactant polymer dressing (SPD), which is currently used clinically as wound care dressing, against PMD in keratinocytes. Triton X-100 (TX100) at sub-lytic concentrations caused PMD as demonstrated by the efflux of calcein and by the influx of propidium iodide and FM1-43. TX100, an inducer of necroptosis, led to mitochondrial fragmentation, depletion of nuclear HMGB1, and activation of signaling complex associated with necroptosis (i.e., activation of RIP3 and phosphorylation of MLKL). All responses following exposure of human keratinocytes to TX100 were attenuated by pre- or co-treatment with SPD (100 mg/ml). The activation and translocation of phospho-MLKL to the plasma membrane, taken together with depletion of nuclear HMGB1, characterized the observed cell death as necroptosis. Thus, our findings show that TX100-induced plasma membrane damage and death by necroptosis were both attenuated by SPD, allowing keratinocyte survival. The significance of such protective effects of SPD on keratinocytes in wound re-epithelialization and closure warrant further studies.

Debridement for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice documents and expert opinion suggests that the removal of devitalised tissue from venous ulcers (debridement) by any one of six methods helps to promote healing. However, to date there has been no review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support this.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different debriding methods or debridement versus no debridement, on the rate of debridement and wound healing in venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. In addition we handsearched conference proceedings, journals not cited in MEDLINE, and the bibliographies of all retrieved publications to identify potential studies. We made contact with the pharmaceutical industry to enquire about any completed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, either published or unpublished, which compared two methods of debridement or compared debridement with no debridement. We presented study results in a narrative form, as meta-analysis was not possible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors completed all study selection, data extraction and assessment of trial quality; resolution of disagreements was completed by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs involving 715 participants. Eight RCTs evaluated autolytic debridement and included the following agents or dressings: biocellulose wound dressing (BWD), non-adherent dressing, honey gel, hydrogel (gel formula), hydrofibre dressing, hydrocolloid dressings, dextranomer beads, Edinburgh University Solution of Lime (EUSOL) and paraffin gauze. Two RCTs evaluated enzymatic preparations and one evaluated biosurgical debridement. No RCTs evaluated surgical, sharp or mechanical methods of debridement, or debridement versus no debridement. Most trials were at a high risk of bias.Three RCTs assessed the number of wounds completely debrided. All three of these trials compared two different methods of autolytic debridement (234 participants), with two studies reporting statistically significant results: one study (100 participants) reported that 40/50 (80%) ulcers treated with dextranomer beads and 7/50 (14%) treated with EUSOL achieved complete debridement (RR 5.71, 95% CI 2.84 to 11.52); while the other trial (86 participants) reported the number of ulcers completely debrided as 31/46 (76%) for hydrogel versus 18/40 (45%) for paraffin gauze (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99). One study (48 participants) reported that by 12 weeks, 15/18 (84%) ulcers treated with BWD had achieved a 75% to 100% clean, granulating wound bed versus 4/15 (26%) treated with non-adherent petrolatum emulsion-impregnated gauze.Four trials assessed the mean time to achieve debridement: one (86 participants) compared two autolytic debridement methods, two compared autolytic methods with enzymatic debridement (71 participants), and the last (12 participants) compared autolytic with biosurgical debridement; none of the results achieved statistical significance.Two trials that assessed autolytic debridement methods reported the number of wounds healed at 12 weeks. One trial (108 participants) reported that 24/54 (44%) ulcers treated with honey healed versus 18/54 (33%) treated with hydrogel (RR (adjusted for baseline wound diameter) 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; P value 0.037). The second trial (48 participants) reported that 7/25 (28%) ulcers treated with BWD healed versus 7/23 (30%) treated with non-adherent dressing.Reduction in wound size was assessed in five trials (444 participants) in which two autolytic methods were compared. Results were statistically significant in one three-armed trial (153 participants) when cadexomer iodine was compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 24.9 cm², 95% CI 7.27 to 42.53, P value 0.006) and hydrocolloid compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 23.8 cm², 95% CI 5.48 to 42.12, P value 0.01). A second trial that assessed reduction in wound size based its results on median differences and, at four weeks, produced a statistically significantly result that favoured honey over hydrogel (P value < 0.001). The other three trials reported no statistically significant results for reduction in wound size, although one trial reported that the mean percentage reduction in wound area was greater at six and 12 weeks for BWD versus a non-adherent dressing (44% versus 24% week 6; 74% versus 54% week 12).Pain was assessed in six trials (544 participants) that compared two autolytic debridement methods, but the results were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to suggest that actively debriding a venous leg ulcer has a clinically significant impact on healing. The overall small number of participants, low number of studies and lack of meta-analysis in this review precludes any strong conclusions of benefit. Comparisons of different autolytic agents (hydrogel versus paraffin gauze; Dextranomer beads versus EUSOL and BWD versus non-adherent dressings) and Larvae versus hydrogel all showed statistically significant results for numbers of wounds debrided. Larger trials with follow up to healing are required.

Does evidence permeate all surgical areas equally? Publication trends in wound care compared to breast cancer care: a longitudinal trend analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based decision making has permeated the daily practice of healthcare professionals. However, in wound care this seems more difficult than in other medical areas, such as breast cancer, which has a similar incidence, variety of etiologies, financial burden, and diversity of treatment options. This incongruence could be due to a lack in quantity and quality of available evidence. We therefore compared worldwide publication trends to answer whether research in wound care lags behind that in breast cancer.

METHODS

In order to assess the trends in quantity and methodological quality of publications as to wound care and breast cancer treatments, we examined relevant publications over the last five decades. Publications in MEDLINE were classified into seven study design categories: (1) guidelines, (2) systematic reviews (SR), (3) randomized (RCT), and controlled clinical trials (CCT), (4) cohort studies, (5) case-control studies, (6) case series and case reports, and (7) other publications.

RESULTS

We found a 30-fold rise in publications on wound care, versus a 70-fold increase in those on breast cancer. High-quality study designs like SR, RCT, or CCT were less frequent in wound care (difference 1.9, 95 % CI 1.8-2.0 %) as were guidelines; 76 on wound care versus 231 for breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Publications on wound care fall behind in quantity and quality as compared to breast cancer. Nevertheless, SR, RCT, and CCT in wound care are becoming more numerous. These high-quality study designs could motivate clinicians to make evidence-based decisions and researchers to perform proper research in wound care.

Low-frequency ultrasound (20-40 kHz) as an adjunctive therapy for chronic wound healing: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials

Ultrasound as a therapeutic agent in chronic wound healing has been studied extensively. This systematic review and meta-analysis specifically examines low-frequency (20-30 kHz) ultrasound delivered at either low or high intensity. The objective of this review was to determine whether low-frequency ultrasound used as an adjunctive therapy improves the outcomes of complete healing and reduction of size of chronic lower limb wounds. PubMed, Cochrane/CENTRAL, technical assessment, relevant wound-related journals, and clinical guidelines were searched along with contacting manufacturers and authors of relevant randomized controlled trials were completed. Searches focused on the use of low-frequency ultrasound in randomized controlled trials. Data were collected via a data collection form and was adjudicated independently via coauthors. Meta-analyses and heterogeneity checks were performed using Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance (fixed and random effects) statistical methods on studies with similar outcomes (complete healing and percent wound area reduction) over similar time periods. Single study results were reported via the statistical methods used in the study. Eight randomized controlled trials were identified. Results demonstrated that early healing (at ≤5 months) in patients with venous stasis and diabetic foot ulcers was favorably influenced by both high- and low-intensity ultrasound delivered at a low frequency-either via contact or noncontact techniques. However, the quality of the data may be suspect, especially for low-frequency low-intensity noncontact ultrasound because of significant biases. In patients presenting with either venous stasis or diabetic foot ulcers (Wagner classification 1-3), early healing appears to be facilitated by either low-frequency low-intensity noncontact ultrasound or low-frequency high-intensity contact ultrasound.

Present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of DFU: a critical review of evidence

Management of foot ulcer in individuals with diabetes remains a major therapeutic challenge throughout the world. We performed a critical review of evidence of present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. The golden standard for optimal evidence in the Cochrane system is level I - randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses of several randomized controlled trials. Available evidence on different types of wound debridement; use of antimicrobials; use of dressings in wounds; topical negative pressure, hyperbaric oxygen treatment; electrical, electromagnetic, laser, shockwave, and ultrasound therapies; growth and cell biology factors; cell products and tissue engineering; bioengineered skin and skin grafts; and adjuvant therapies were evaluated. The results of this review show that there is limited evidence on the highest level to justify a change in routine clinical practice. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence, because the studies are often based on inadequate sample size, short follow-up, nonrandom allocation to treatment arms, nonblinded assessment of outcomes, poor description of control, and concurrent intervention. The heterogeneity of the population (of both people and ulcers), with multiple factors contributing to both ulcer onset and failure to heal, makes the trial design difficult in this field. Another fundamental reason for the lack of evidence is the general use of the outcome measure 'complete healing'. In conclusion, when the results of this updated review are taken together with those of the earlier reports, they provide limited evidence to justify a change in routine clinical practice. For this reason, there is an urgent need to increase the quality of clinical studies. A re-evaluation of which type of research is acceptable for producing evidence in the wound area may be important in the future.

Prophylaxis and management of wound infections after elective colorectal surgery: a survey of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons membership

BACKGROUND

Postoperative wound infections are a widespread and costly problem, especially in colorectal surgery. Despite their prevalence, there are few data regarding appropriate management and prevention strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In order to assess current attitudes and practices about this subject, and as a guide to designing a randomized trial to gather evidence in order to support data-driven protocol development, an e-mail survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons to assess current attitudes and practices pertaining to prevention and management of wound infections.

RESULTS

Most respondents estimated that the wound infection rate in their own patients was much lower than commonly reported in the literature. Use of evidence-based perioperative strategies for reducing wound infection, such as the use of a wound protector, hyperoxygenation, and implementation of the Surgical Care Improvement Project guidelines, were far from universal. Management strategies varied widely, without apparent rational basis.

CONCLUSION

Based on the practices and beliefs in the surgical community, it is our hope that a multi-institutional study can be carried out to objectify best practices in both the effective and cost-effective management of this common condition and to reduce the wide variation in the treatment of surgical site infections.