Wound irrigation

Clinical use of 0.1% polyhexanide and propylbetaine on acute and hard-to-heal wounds: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the findings on the effect of the clinical use of 0.1% polyhexanide-propylbetaine (PHMB/betaine) solution/gel on acute and hard-to-heal (chronic) wound healing.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration. Paired reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and full-text screening to identify experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies. Study quality and risk of bias were not formally evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings from 12 studies indicated that the use of 0.1% PHMB/betaine solution/gel had: a low risk of contact sensitivity; could help debridement during wound cleansing; aided effective wound bed preparation; reduced wound size, odour and exudate; improved pain control; reduced microbial load; and enhanced wound healing. The results of three studies indicated that both 0.1% PHMB and saline solution were effective in reducing bacterial load, while another showed that adding 0.1% PHMB to tie-over dressings had no effect on reducing bacterial loads in wounds. Another study concluded that disinfection and granulation of pressure ulcers with hydrobalance dressing with 0.3% PHMB was faster and more effective than using 0.1% PHMB/betaine.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this literature review showed that 0.1% PHMB/betaine solution/gel appeared to be useful and safe for wound cleansing, was effective in removing soft debris and slough from the wound bed, and created a wound environment optimal for healing. Although these actions cannot be attributed solely to this treatment modality, these results do highlight the unique action of this combined product. However, more robust studies are needed to confirm these results.

Wound cleansing for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm², 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm²). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.

Saline in Dermatology: A literature review

BACKGROUND

Saline, with its different concentrations, is the most used crystalloid solution in medicine. In dermatology, no large studies investigated the benefits of saline. The aim of this article is to review the different possible uses of saline in dermatology, in order to give final recommendations based on the literature review and our experience.

METHODS

We performed a literature search based on PubMed, EMBASE, WHO Global Health Library, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Research gate. using the keywords: saline, physiological, hypertonic, isotonic, hypotonic, salt solution, sodium chloride, 0.9% NaCl, solvent, drug delivery, injection mixtures, diluent, sclerosant, intravenous, intralesional, injection, topical, soaks, fomentation, inhalation, alopecia, psoriasis, scars, atopic dermatitis, eczema, bromoderma, iododerma, lipodystrophy, in various combinations with the Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT. We also hand-searched textbooks.

RESULTS

Saline was used as a diluent with intralesional injection of steroids to minimize the risk of steroid-induced atrophy, being safe and free from preservatives that may precipitate steroids at site of injection and maximize their side effects. Saline has also been used after surgery, when atrophic scars take place or anticipated, and through injection in leishmaniasis, granuloma annulare, atrophic acne scars before using other expensive and less tolerated treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The saline represents a helpful option as a diluent with intralesional injection of steroids in various dermatologic therapeutic indications. Moreover, the use of saline in this setting could help to minimize the risk of steroid-induced atrophy. We encourage the use of saline after surgery, when atrophic scars take place or anticipated. Also, we encourage a trial of saline injection in leishmaniasis, granuloma annulare, atrophic acne scars before using other expensive and less tolerated treatment options.

Optimal Compression Therapy and Wound Care for Venous Ulcers

Venous leg ulcers remain a major public health issue with significant economic impact. Two main components of the management of patients with venous leg ulcers are compression therapy and wound care. This article addresses principles and specific aspects of compression therapy and focal wound care for patients with venous leg ulcers.

Better Clinical Practice Could Overcome Patient-Related Risk Factors of Vascular Surgical Site Infections

Purpose: To clarify the current status of surgical site infection (SSI) during endovascular aortic repair and to define risk factors for SSI among the patients who underwent thoracic or abdominal stent-graft repair through a groin incision. Methods: Between 2006 and 2013, data were collected from 1604 patients (mean age 75.2±9.5 years; 1282 men) with 2799 groin incisions for transfemoral access during aortic stent-graft procedures. SSIs were classified as superficial or deep (both occurring within 30 days) or organ/space infections (occurring within 1 year after surgery) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Strategies in place for minimizing SSIs were (1) employing oblique groin incisions, (2) covering the incision with saline-soaked gauze, (3) irrigating the incision thoroughly with saline per layer, and (4) using absorbable sutures. Results: Overall incidence of SSI was 0.4% (6 patients). The majority of SSIs were late-onset prosthetic graft infections (5, 0.3%). Five of the 6 were successfully treated with conservative therapy; one patient died of sepsis. Univariate analysis showed additional therapy (eg, coil embolization) with a stent-graft procedure was a risk factor for SSI. Conclusion: Appropriate antibiotic administration, oblique groin incision, meticulous operative technique, protection against airborne infection during the operation, and closed dressings may avert vascular wound SSIs.

Wound cleansing for pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also called pressure sores, bed sores and decubitus ulcers) are areas of tissue damage that occur in the elderly, malnourished or acutely ill, who cannot reposition themselves. Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect quality of life. Wound cleansing is considered an important component of pressure ulcer care.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to answer the following question: what is the effect of wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques on the rate of healing of pressure ulcers?

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 3 January 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to November Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 31, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 52); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 21 December 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective measure of pressure ulcer healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and resolved disagreements through discussion. A structured narrative summary of the included studies was conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, risk ratio (RR), plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, mean difference (MD), plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified. Two review authors independently assessed each included study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One additional eligible study was identified from the updated searches, one study was added to the table of excluded studies. A total of three studies (169 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. Two studies compared different wound cleansing solutions. A statistically significant improvement in Pressure Sore Status Tool scores occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline (P value = 0.025), but no statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared with saline (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 41.89). One study compared cleansing techniques; for pressure ulcers cleansed with pulsatile lavage, compared with sham (the lavage flow was directed into a wash basin positioned adjacent to the wound and not visible to the participants), there was a statistically significant reduction in ulcer volume at the end of the three week study period in the lavage group compared with the sham group (MD -6.60, 95% CI-11.23, -1.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified three small studies addressing cleansing of pressure ulcers. One reported a statistically significant improvement in pressure ulcer healing for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline solution, a further study reported no statistically significant change in healing was seen when wounds were cleaned with water was compared with saline. A final study compared pulsatile lavage with sham and found a significantly greater reduction in ulcer volume at the end of the study period in the lavage group compared with the sham group. The authors conclude that there is no good trial evidence to support use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers.

Water for wound cleansing

Background  Various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, however, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is less likely to interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in the community for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost-effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use. Objectives  The objective of this review was to assess the effects of water compared with other solutions for wound cleansing. Search strategy  Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified by electronic searches of Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2004), MEDLINE (1996-2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2004). Primary authors, company representatives and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from included trials were also searched. Selection criteria  Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of water with other solutions for wound cleansing were eligible for inclusion. Additional criteria were outcomes that included objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing. Data collection and analysis  Trial selection, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer. Differences in opinion were settled by discussion. Some data were pooled using a fixed effects model. Main results  Five trials were identified that compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water and normal saline; three compared cleansing with no cleansing and one compared cleansing with procaine spirit with water. There were no standard criteria for the assessment of wound infection across the trials which limited the ability to pool the data. The major comparisons were water versus normal saline, and tap water versus no cleansing. For chronic wounds, the relative risk of developing an infection when cleansed with tap water compared with normal saline was 0.16 (95% CI 0.01-2.96). Use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults was associated with a lower rate of infection than saline (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97). The use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds in children was not associated with a statistically significant difference in infection, when compared with saline (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.43-2.64). Similarly, no statistically significant differences in infection rates were seen when wounds were cleansed with tap water versus not cleansed at all (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.31-2.12). Likewise, there was no difference in the infection rate in episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or procaine spirit. The use of isotonic saline, distilled water and boiled water for cleansing open fractures also did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the number of fractures that were infected. Conclusions  Although the evidence is limited one trial has suggested that the use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds reduces the infection rate and other trials conclude that there is no difference in the infection and healing rates between wounds that were not cleansed and those cleansed with tap water and other solutions. In the absence of drinkable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as cleansing agents.

Remote Site Production of Sterile Purified Water from Available Surface Water

A water purification and sterilization device was tested for its functional capabilities. Challenge water consisting of potable water augmented with bacteria, endotoxin, virus, suspended solids, and dissociable ions (sodium chloride, lead or arsenic salts) was passed through the device. The product water quality attributes were analyzed. The device demonstrated reduction in bacteria of >7 logs, endotoxin was reduced by >4 logs, virus was reduced by >4 logs, and dissociable ions were reduced by >3 logs. The product water of the device met the limits for a range of chemical entities specified by the United States Pharmacopeia and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. The product water met the quality attributes of Sterile Water for Injection, USP, Sterile Purified Water, USP, and the Water for Dialysis. The device provides a logistical advantage in reducing the weight of transport of packaged water by 83% and the cube by 67%. It operates manually by gravity and is disposable after a single use. The device provides an effective alternative to the transport and use of packaged sterile water in remote locations by production of sterile water at the pointof-need using available water. It also is capable of producing safe drinking water following the production of clinical waters. This device has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for production of three liters Sterile Purified Water, USP from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grade drinking water.

Water for wound cleansing

BACKGROUND

Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and does not interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in the community for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of water compared with other solutions for wound cleansing.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 November 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to October Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, November 8, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2011 Week 44); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 4 November 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials that compared the use of water with other solutions for wound cleansing were eligible for inclusion. Additional criteria were outcomes that included objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We settled differences in opinion by discussion. We pooled some data using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this review. We identified seven trials that compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water and normal saline; three trials compared cleansing with no cleansing and one trial compared procaine spirit with water. There were no standard criteria for assessing wound infection across the trials, which limited the ability to pool the data. The major comparisons were water with normal saline, and tap water with no cleansing. For chronic wounds, the relative risk of developing an infection when cleansed with tap water compared with normal saline was 0.16, (95% CI 0.01 to 2.96). Tap water was more effective than saline in reducing the infection rate in adults with acute wounds (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). The use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds in children was not associated with a statistically significant difference in infection when compared to saline (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.64). We identified no statistically significant differences in infection rates when wounds were cleansed with tap water or not cleansed at all (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.50). Likewise, there was no difference in the infection rate in episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or procaine spirit. The use of isotonic saline, distilled water and boiled water for cleansing open fractures also did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the number of fractures that were infected.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults increases infection and some evidence that it reduces it. However there is not strong evidence that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection. In the absence of potable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as wound cleansing agents.

Wound irrigation within the surgical treatment of osteomyelitis

The basic treatment of osteomyelitis remains even today the surgical debridement in combination with a wound irrigation by lavage systems. Next to a comprehensive knowledge of the surgical techniques a profound knowledge of the lavage systems, the rinsing solutions used and the philosophies of revision programs are a must. In this article the typical hardware of modern lavage systems is analysed, their advantages and disadvantages are pointed out. In addition we investigate the value of common antiseptic wound irrigation solutions for their use in osteomyelitis therapy. Finally the two basic philosophies of wound revision and irrigation in the course of osteomyelitis therapy are presented and discussed.

Wound cleansing, topical antiseptics and wound healing

Quality of care is a critical requirement for wound healing and 'good' care of wounds has been synonymous with topical prevention and management of microbial contamination. Topical antiseptics are antimicrobial agents that kill, inhibit or reduce the number of microorganisms and are thought to be essential for wounds infection control. However, they have long and commonly been used on wounds to prevent or treat infection, the merits of antiseptic fluid irrigation have received little scientific study. Unlike antibiotics that act selectively on a specific target, antiseptics have multiple targets and a broader spectrum of activity, which include bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa and even prions. Although certain skin and wound cleansers are designed as topical solutions with varying degrees of antimicrobial activity, concerns have been raised. Wound cleansers may affect normal human cells and may be antimitotic adversely affecting normal tissue repair. Repeated and excessive treatment of wounds with antiseptics without proper indications may have negative outcomes or promote a microenvironment similar to those found in chronic wounds. However, when applied at the proper times and concentrations, some classes of antiseptics may provide a tool for the clinician to drive the wound bed in desired directions. The present review summarises the various antiseptics in use and their negative impact on the wound healing mechanisms. It is clear that the role of antiseptics on wounds and their role in wound care management need to be reconsidered.

Wound-related pain: key sources and triggers

Wound-related pain is a common phenomenon for many patients and in recent years there has been a growing awareness of the impact it has on both wound healing and quality of life. Research in the field of wound pain and the patient experience, the development of new products and the issue of expert consensus statements have all contributed to an improvement in our understanding of wound-related pain issues and our ability to effectively manage them. However, there are a multitude of intrinsic sources of wound-related pain which can be triggered or exacerbated by numerous external factors, making management both complex and challenging at times. In this article, key sources and triggers of wound-related pain are discussed, along with practical strategies for effective, patient-focused management to help health-care practitioners reduce both the incidence and impact of wound-related pain.

Water for wound cleansing

BACKGROUND

Various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, however normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and does not interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in the community for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost effective, however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of water compared with other solutions for wound cleansing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified by electronic searches of Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), MEDLINE (1996-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007), CINAHL (1982-2007) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3; 2007). Primary authors, company representatives and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from included trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials that compared the use of water with other solutions for wound cleansing were eligible for inclusion. Additional criteria were outcomes that included objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors and checked by a third author. Differences in opinion were settled by discussion. Some data were pooled using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were included in this review. Seven trials were identified that compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water and normal saline, three trials compared cleansing with no cleansing and one trial compared procaine spirit with water. There were no standard criteria for assessing wound infection across the trials which limited the ability to pool the data. The major comparisons were water with normal saline, and tap water with no cleansing. For chronic wounds, the relative risk of developing an infection when cleansed with tap water compared with normal saline was 0.16, (95% CI 0.01 to 2.96). Tap water was more effective than saline in reducing the infection rate in adults with acute wounds (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). The use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds in children was not associated with a statistically significant difference in infection when compared to saline (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.64). No statistically significant differences in infection rates were seen when wounds were cleansed with tap water or not cleansed at all (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.50). Likewise, there was no difference in the infection rate in episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or procaine spirit. The use of isotonic saline, distilled water and boiled water for cleansing open fractures also did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the number of fractures that were infected.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults increases infection and some evidence that it reduces it. However there is not strong evidence that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection. In the absence of potable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as wound cleansing agents.

Prontosan wound irrigation and gel: management of chronic wounds

Chronic wounds present a challenge that is costly in terms of quality of life to the patient and in financial terms for the NHS. Several factors contribute to the development of a chronic wound, in particular the influence of bacteria as a biofilm within the wound environment. Irrigating a wound with normal saline has long been advocated as the most appropriate method of wound irrigation but biofilms are now known to be resistant to this method of cleansing. A small (10 patient) evaluation of the use of Prontosan in patients whose duration of chronic wounds exceeded 1 year has demonstrated that Prontosan wound irrigation and Prontosan gel are an appropriate alternative for cleaning, moistening and decontaminating encrusted, contaminated and chronic skin wounds, and can have a dramatic influence of the quality of life for such patients. This article discusses the cause of chronicity within a wound and discusses in depth three of the ten patients in the evaluation.

Wound cleansing for pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also called pressure sores, bed sores and decubitus ulcers) are areas of tissue damage that occur in the very old, malnourished or acutely ill, who cannot reposition themselves. Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect quality of life. Wound cleansing is considered an important component of pressure ulcer care.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to answer the following question:What is the effect of wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques on the rate of healing of pressure ulcers?

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (up to August 2005), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005). We searched bibliographies of relevant publications retrieved. We contacted drug companies and experts in the field to identify studies missed by the primary search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective measure of pressure ulcer healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently and resolved disagreements through discussion and reference to the Cochrane Wounds Group editorial base. A structured narrative summary of the included studies was conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risk (RR), plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, weighted mean difference (WMD), plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted, because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. Two studies compared different wound cleansing solutions: a statistically significant improvement in Pressure Sore Status Tool scores occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared to isotonic saline (P value = 0.025), but no statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared to saline (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.21, 41.89). One study compared cleansing techniques, but no statistically significant change in healing was seen for ulcers cleansed with, or without, a whirlpool (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.76).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only three studies addressing cleansing of pressure ulcers. One noted a statistically significant improvement in pressure ulcer healing for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) when compared with isotonic saline solution. Overall, there is no good trial evidence to support use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers.

A critical review of irrigation techniques in acute wounds

Irrigation is a fundamental concept to the care of acute wounds and therefore of prime importance in all surgical specialties. A significant amount of research has been done in search of the most effective irrigation technique over the last three decades. There is evidence to show that irrigation is beneficial in the management of acute traumatic and elective wounds, but exactly which techniques and irrigation pressures needed for optimal outcome are still undetermined. A significant number of the studies to date lack the rigid scientific design needed in a climate of evidence-based medicine. There are substantial methodological flaws and a lack of standardisation between many studies hindering the ability to draw scientific conclusion and compare different studies. There are few randomised, controlled studies on human wounds, and extrapolation from animal studies must be done with caution. Investigation into different irrigation pressures for different levels of contamination is lacking. This would possibly produce a more logical approach for clinically managing acute wounds rather than a blanket treatment for all acute wounds irrespective of the level of contamination. Further research in this direction with greater attention to scientific methodology and design is needed.

Tap water or normal saline for cleansing traumatic wounds?

The aim of this review was to identify whether cleansing with tap water results in higher rates of wound infection or delayed healing compared with other cleansing solutions in adults or children with acute uncomplicated traumatic soft tissue wounds. The review utilized a systematic search of key databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, British Nursing Index and PubMed), bibliographies, and internet resources. Three controlled trials were found which studied 1281 people. One further study reported outcomes but could not be fully examined as only an abstract was available. Based on the studies reviewed, results suggest no clinically significant increase in the risk of wound infection in wounds irrigated with tap water when compared to sterile normal saline in uncomplicated soft tissue injury. However, the available evidence lacks strength because of the relatively low power and poor quality of studies.

Evaluation of a honey-impregnated tulle dressing in primary care

Honey has been used for its healing properties for centuries and has been used to dress wounds with favourable results. The emergence of antibiotic resistance and growing interest in "natural" or "complementary" therapies has led to an interest in honey dressings. Much of the research to date has been related to honey's antibacterial properties. However, the healing properties claimed for honey also include stimulating new tissue growth, moist wound healing, fluid handling and promoting epithelialization. Until recently, honey had not been developed as a wound management product and was not a certified pharmaceutical device. Activon Tulle is a sterile, non-adherent dressing impregnated with Leptospermum scoparium hone. The claimed properties of honey dressings would make this a valuable addition to the dressing currently available in the primary care setting. An evaluation was undertaken involving 20 patients with a variety of wounds. A conclusion is drawn that while further research is needed, medical grade honey does appear to be a valuable addition to the wound management formulary.

Effectiveness of solutions, techniques and pressure in wound cleansing

BACKGROUND

This systematic review updates a previous review published in 2001. Cleansing is a vital component of wound management; however; little attention has been give to the solutions and techniques used for cleansing purposes. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of different solutions, pressures and techniques used for wound cleansing to prevent infection and promote wound healing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised and clinical controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Additional searches of other databases and hand searches of journals and bibliographies was undertaken to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and clinical controlled trials involving adults and/or children whose wounds were cleaned with commercial cleansers, normal saline, water, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised solutions for preoperative skin cleansing, compared solutions for burns or dental procedures, and those that compared dressings for patients with ulcers were excluded from this review. Outcomes included rate of healing, incidence of infections or levels of bacterial count. Selection of potential articles, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. The data were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomised controlled trials were included that compared various solutions for wound cleansing. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the infection and healing rates in acute and chronic wounds cleansed with either tap water or normal saline. An irrigation pressure of 13 psi is effective for cleansing wounds and reducing infection without causing tissue trauma.There were no studies comparing common techniques for wound cleansing such as swabbing or scrubbing. Showering postoperative wounds did not demonstrate any difference in infection rates; however, it increased the morale of the patient. Whirlpool therapy was effective in reducing inflammation and pain in surgical wounds.

CONCLUSIONS

These conclusions are based on the best available clinical evidence. However, there is an urgent need to support these findings with rigorous research as some of the conclusions are based on single studies with limited sample sizes.Solutions for wound cleansing:Pressure for wound cleansing:Techniques for wound cleansing.

The cleansing of superficial traumatic wounds

Patients with skin injuries account for 15% of accident and emergency (A&E) admissions (Leaman, 1991). Although there is evidence to suggest that wound cleansing is not always necessary (Thomlinson, 1987), no diagnostic test exists to allow healthcare practitioners to identify whether the bacterial load in the wound is capable of causing infection (Chrisholm, 1992). For this reason, all wounds in A&E should undergo some form of cleansing to decrease the bacterial inoculum in the wound to levels that can be managed by host defences (Chrisholm, 1992). Heyworth (1997) postulates that successful management of the contaminated wound must remove contaminants while inflicting minimal injury to tissue. This article reviews the research on the preparation and cleansing of superficial lacerations. Wound closure and indications for oral antibiotics will not be discussed.

Sterile saline versus tap water: which is most effective?

As a staff nurse who has recently moved to work in a primary care setting, I am often confused by the views of colleagues who appear unsure as to which is the right solution (tap water or saline) to use when cleaning wounds, most of them chronic. Is there a definitive answer to this question?

Water for wound cleansing

BACKGROUND

Various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, however normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and does not interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in the community for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost effective, however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of water compared to other solutions for wound cleansing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified by electronic searches of Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Primary authors, company representatives and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from included trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi randomised controlled trials that compared the use of water with other solutions for wound cleansing were eligible for inclusion. Additional criteria were outcomes that included objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer. Differences in opinion were settled by discussion. Some data were pooled using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were identified that compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water and normal saline, two compared cleansing with no cleansing and one compared procaine spirit with water. There were no standard criteria for the assessment of wound infection across the trials which limited the ability to pool the data. The major comparisons were water vs normal saline, and tap water vs no cleansing. For chronic wounds, the odds of developing an infection when cleansed with tap water compared with normal saline was 0.16, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01, 2.96. Use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds was associated with a lower rate of infection than saline (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.96). No statistically significant differences in infection rates were seen when wounds were cleansed with tap water or not cleansed at all (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.06, 17.47). Similarly there was no difference in the infection rate in wounds cleansed with water or procaine spirit and those cleansed with isotonic saline, distilled water and boiled water (OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.18,1.62).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although the evidence is limited one trial has suggested that the use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds reduces the infection rate and other trials conclude that there is no difference in the infection and healing rates between wounds that were not cleansed and those cleansed with tap water and other solutions. However the quality of the tap water should be considered prior to its use and in the absence of potable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as wound cleansing agents.

Is tap water a safe alternative to normal saline for wound irrigation in the community setting?

OBJECTIVE

This double-blind randomised controlled trial compared the effects of tap water and normal saline on the healing and infection rates of acute and chronic wounds.

METHOD

The trial was conducted in two metropolitan community health centres in New South Wales, Australia. Thirty-five patients with 49 acute or chronic wounds were randomised to receive wound irrigation with either normal saline or tap water.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis demonstrated there was no significant difference between the infection and healing rates in wounds irrigated with normal saline or tap water.

CONCLUSION

Although the small sample size is a limitation of this study, the researchers conclude that drinkable tap water appears to provide a safe alternative to normal saline for wound cleansing and may be preferred by some patients.

Cleansing traumatic wounds with swabs, water or saline

This article reviews current methods of cleansing and irrigating topical wounds, highlighting the limitations of existing research and the need to develop a set of expert guidelines for practitioners

Evidence-based practice: tap water cleansing of leg ulcers in the community

To establish and encourage wound management practices based on evidence, a Community Nursing Organization in metropolitan Adelaide began a series of research initiatives in 1997. Based on the results of a wound management survey, and through the processes of participatory action research with clinicians, many wound management practice changes were instigated throughout the Community Nursing Organization. One question remains unanswered: What is the evidence for the use of sterile saline or clean tap water for cleansing of leg ulcers in the community? In this paper we describe a project where we applied the three principles of planning, action and evaluation. Application of these principles enabled clinicians to collaborate in the search for evidence to support or refute tap water cleansing of leg ulcers. To conclude, we report on a pilot research project undertaken to obtain further evidence either to support or refute the use of tap water cleansing for leg ulcers in the community.

Wound irrigation techniques: new Steripod normal saline

Wound cleansing is performed on a regular basis by many healthcare professionals. However, the modern concept of cleansing has not always been a priority in wound management. There are many questions which challenge those responsible for cleaning wounds such as how often a wound should be cleaned and which techniques should be used. This article begins with a brief guide to wound cleansing and then focuses on the new Steripod normal saline produced by SSL International.

Management of wound sinuses

An update on the development, assessment and management of wound sinuses.