Effect of an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing on wound pain: a real-life RCT

Strategies for reducing pain at dressing change in chronic wounds: protocol for a mapping review

INTRODUCTION

Although pain experienced at dressing change has been reported as the worst aspect of living with chronic wounds, UK guidance for their management is primarily tailored to wound healing and only attends to pain as a secondary consideration. Consequently, there is little up-to-date guidance that specifically addresses how patients, carers and healthcare professionals should manage wound-related pain at dressing change. This mapping review will identify, describe and appraise the existing research evidence for strategies used to assess pain intensity and prevent or alleviate pain at dressing change in chronic wounds. In addition, it will highlight areas for future research and inform the development of up-to-date guidance for healthcare professionals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily (via Ovid SP), Embase (via Ovid SP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Cochrane Library), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO) and the Web of Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index (via Clarivate Analytics). Screening will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Included studies will be subject to coding, using a tested data extraction tool, by two reviewers working independently. The methodological quality of the studies included will be reviewed using quality assessment instruments appropriate for each study design (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2); Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of interventions tool; Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool). Data will be described narratively and also presented visually in an interactive web-based evidence and gap map.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this mapping review does not collect original data, ethical approval is not applicable. Findings will be disseminated via a written report, an interactive online mapping tool and in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021260130.

Systematic review of topical interventions for the management of pain in chronic wounds

Chronic wounds adversely affect quality of life. Pain is associated with chronic wounds, and its impact can vary according to wound aetiology, condition, and patient factors. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of topical interventions in the management chronic wound-related pain guided by PRISMA recommendations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where pain reduction is the primary outcome. Inclusion criteria were adults (older than 18 years) with chronic venous, arterial, diabetic, or pressure ulcers where pain has been managed through topical administration of pharmacological/nonpharmacological agents. Searches were conducted in Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies were screened for eligibility; risk of bias and data were extracted by 2 independent assessors. Searches retrieved 10,327 titles and abstracts (7760 after deduplication). Nine full texts (1323 participants) examining ibuprofen (n = 4), morphine (n = 2), BWD + PHMB [polihexanide-containing biocellulose wound dressing] (n = 1), and EMLA (n = 2) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Meta-analysis was not possible, but initial exploration suggests improved outcomes (reduced pain) for ibuprofen when compared with controls. Two studies involving morphine showed conflicting findings. Included studies often had small samples, and considering confounding factors (eg, comorbidities), the results should be interpreted with caution. Review of included studies suggests that topical interventions may provide pain relief in individuals with chronic wounds. Further adequately powered RCTs are recommended to assess the efficacy of topical interventions for the management of chronic wound-related pain.

Should video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy be used for adults undergoing endotracheal intubation in the pre-hospital setting? A critical appraisal of a systematic review

The safety and utility of endotracheal intubation by paramedics in the United Kingdom is a matter of debate. Considering the controversy surrounding the safety of paramedic-performed endotracheal intubation, any interventions that enhance patient safety should be evaluated for implementation based on solid evidence of their effectiveness. A systematic review performed by Hansel and colleagues (2022) sought to assess compare video laryngoscopes against direct laryngoscopes in clinical practice. This commentary aims to critically appraise the methods used within the review by Hansel et al (2022) and expand upon the findings in the context of clinical practice.

[Diagnosis and treatment of vasculitic ulcerations]

Vasculitis is a rare cause of skin ulceration. Depending on the size of the affected vessel, the patient's comorbidities and the pathophysiology present, different clinical morphologies can be seen, which can often give preliminary indications of the type of underlying vasculitis. There may be systemic or cutaneous manifestations; thus, a targeted diagnostic workup should be initiated at an early stage. Treatment should be interdisciplinary if there is systemic participation. Vasculopathies (e.g., livedoid vasculopathy), in which occlusion of the vascular lumen is the main pathophysiological feature, should be delimitated from vasculitis. If vasculitic or vasculopathic ulceration is present, stage-appropriate wound management is recommended.

Polysaccharide Thin Solid Films for Analgesic Drug Delivery and Growth of Human Skin Cells

Chronic wounds not only lower the quality of patient's life significantly, but also present a huge financial burden for the healthcare systems around the world. Treatment of larger wounds often requires the use of more complex materials, which can ensure a successful renewal or replacement of damaged or destroyed tissues. Despite a range of advanced wound dressings that can facilitate wound healing, there are still no clinically used dressings for effective local pain management. Herein, alginate (ALG) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), two of the most commonly used materials in the field of chronic wound care, and combination of ALG-CMC were used to create a model wound dressing system in the form of multi-layered thin solid films using the spin-assisted layer-by-layer (LBL) coating technique. The latter multi-layer system was used to incorporate and study the release kinetics of analgesic drugs such as diclofenac and lidocaine at physiological conditions. The wettability, morphology, physicochemical and surface properties of the coated films were evaluated using different surface sensitive analytical tools. The influence of in situ incorporated drug molecules on the surface properties (e.g., roughness) and on the proliferation of human skin cells (keratinocytes and skin fibroblasts) was further evaluated. The results obtained from this preliminary study should be considered as the basis for the development "real" wound dressing materials and for 3D bio-printing applications.

Impact of non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing in the lives of patients with venous ulcers

Objective

to evaluate pain in patients with lower limb venous ulcer who used non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing (IFD).

Methods

we conducted a prospective study of patients with lower limb venous ulcers treated from April 2013 to August 2014. We used the Numerical Scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire, performing the assessments at the moment of inclusion of the patient in the study and every eight days thereafter, totaling five consultations. We divided the patients into two groups: 40 in the Study Group (SG), who were treated with IFD, and 40 in the Control Group (CG), treated with primary dressing, according to tissue type and exudate.

Results

at the first consultation, patients from both groups reported intense pain. On the fifth day, SG patients reported no pain and the majority of CG reported moderate pain. Regarding the McGill Pain Questionnaire, most patients of both groups reported sensations related to sensory, affective, evaluative and miscellaneous descriptors at the beginning of data collection; after the second assessment, there was slight improvement among the patients in the SG. After the third consultation, they no longer reported the mentioned descriptors. CG patients displayed all the sensations of these descriptors until the fifth visit.

Conclusion

non-adherent Ibuprofen foam dressing is effective in reducing the pain of patients with venous ulcers.

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence-based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision-making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 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; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). 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

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers.The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study's estimated effect.We present data for four comparisons.One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision.Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short-term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow-up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI -4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm² per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision.The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow-up times ranged from short-term (8 weeks or less) to medium-term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD -35.80 days, 95% CI -56.77 to -14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds 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 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, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured, often with sutures, staples, or clips. Wound dressings applied after wound closure may provide physical support, protection and absorb exudate. There are many different types of wound dressings available and wounds can also be left uncovered (exposed). Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of wounds and this may be associated with using (or not using) dressings, or different types of dressing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound dressings compared with no wound dressings, and the effects of alternative wound dressings, in preventing SSIs in surgical wounds healing by primary intention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print; 1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016).There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound dressings with wound exposure (no dressing) or alternative wound dressings for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (5718 participants). All studies except one were at an unclear or high risk of bias. Studies were small, reported low numbers of SSI events and were often not clearly reported. There were 16 trials that included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean' classification, five trials that included people undergoing what was considered 'clean/contaminated' surgery, with the remaining studies including people undergoing a variety of surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Four trials compared wound dressings with no wound dressing (wound exposure); the remaining 25 studies compared alternative dressing types, with the majority comparing a basic wound contact dressing with film dressings, silver dressings or hydrocolloid dressings. The review contains 11 comparisons in total.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

SSIIt is uncertain whether wound exposure or any dressing reduces or increases the risk of SSI compared with alternative options investigated: we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for most comparisons (and low for others), with downgrading (according to GRADE criteria) largely due to risk of bias and imprecision. We summarise the results of comparisons with meta-analysed data below:- film dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.55), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.78), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.51), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. Secondary outcomesThere was limited and low or very low certainty evidence on secondary outcomes such as scarring, acceptability of dressing and ease of removal, and uncertainty whether wound dressings influenced these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI, or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the risk of SSI, improving scarring, reducing pain, improving acceptability to patients, or is easier to remove. Most studies in this review were small and at a high or unclear risk of bias. Based on the current evidence, decision makers may wish to base decisions about how to dress a wound following surgery on dressing costs as well as patient preference.

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound treatments in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (535 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings, alginate dressings and a topical treatment. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing or a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing and a topical cream containing plant extracts.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing or a topical cream containing plant extracts. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Hydrogel dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hydrogel wound dressings compared with alternative dressings or none on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrogel with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (446 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of three studies comparing hydrogel dressings with basic wound contract dressings found significantly greater healing with hydrogel: risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.56. The three pooled studies had different follow-up times (12 weeks, 16 weeks and 20 weeks) and also evaluated ulcers of different severities (grade 3 and 4; grade 2 and grade unspecified). One study compared a hydrogel dressing with larval therapy and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed and another found no statistically significant difference in healing between hydrogel and platelet-derived growth factor. There was also no statistically significant difference in number of healed ulcers between two different brands of hydrogel dressing. All included studies were small and at unclear risk of bias and there was some clinical heterogeneity with studies including different ulcer grades. No included studies compared hydrogel with other advanced wound dressings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that hydrogel dressings are more effective in healing (lower grade) diabetic foot ulcers than basic wound contact dressings however this finding is uncertain due to risk of bias in the original studies. There is currently no research evidence to suggest that hydrogel is more effective than larval therapy or platelet-derived growth factors in healing diabetic foot ulcers, nor that one brand of hydrogel is more effective than another in ulcer healing. No RCTs comparing hydrogel dressings with other advanced dressing types were found.

Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of alginate wound dressings with no wound dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of alginate dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

The review aimed to evaluate the effects of foam wound dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL in April 2013. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects on ulcer healing of one or more foam wound dressings in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (157 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of two studies indicated that foam dressings do not promote the healing of diabetic foot ulcers compared with basic wound contact dressings (RR 2.03, 95%CI 0.91 to 4.55). Pooled data from two studies comparing foam and alginate dressing found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.44). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when foam dressings were compared with hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. All included studies were small and/or had limited follow-up times.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that foam wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however all trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1% of people at some time in their lives and are often painful. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. Topical treatments to reduce pain during and between dressing changes are sometimes used.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update the following databases were searched: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 May 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (2009 to April Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 08, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2009 to 2012 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (2009 to May 2 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical agents or dressing for the treatment of pain in venous ulcers were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (343 participants) evaluated Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA): lidocaine-prilocaine cream for the pain associated with ulcer debridement. The between-group difference in pain measured on a 100 mm scale was statistically significant in favour of EMLA (MD -20.65, 95% CI -12.19 to -29.11). No significant between-group differences in burning or itching were observed.Two trials (470 participants with venous leg ulcers) evaluated ibuprofen slow-release foam dressings for persistent venous leg ulcer pain. Compared with local best practice, significantly more participants in the ibuprofen dressing group achieved the outcome of >50% of the total maximum pain relief score between day 1 and day 5 than participants in the local best practice group (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.15). The number needed to treat was 6 (95% CI 4 to 12). In the second trial, compared with an identical non-ibuprofen foam dressing, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing slight to complete pain relief on the first evening of treatment.Limited data were available to assess healing rates or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that ibuprofen dressings may offer pain relief to people with painful venous leg ulcers. EMLA (5%) appears to provide effective pain relief during the debridement of venous leg ulcers. Further research should consider standardised pain assessment methods and assess both the effect on ulcer healing and the impact of long term use of these treatments.

Clinically relevant pain relief with an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing: results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial in exuding, painful venous leg ulcers

The objective of this 6-week, 120-patient, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was to investigate if a foam dressing with ibuprofen provided clinically relevant pain relief (PAR) for exuding, painful venous leg ulcers in comparison with a similar foam dressing without ibuprofen. Primary outcome parameter was PAR compared with baseline pain during the first 5 days of the investigation. PAR was registered by the patient morning and evening. Main end point was proportion of patients reporting a summed PAR score of at least 50% of the total maximum PAR (i.e., responders) and the corresponding number needed to treat (NNT). Wound-related parameters such as ulcer healing, ulcer area reduction, and peri-ulcer skin condition as well as adverse events were recorded during all 6 weeks of the investigation. PAR was significantly greater in the ibuprofen foam group than the comparator group (p = 0.0438). There were 34% responders in the ibuprofen foam group vs. 19% in the comparator group (NNT = 6.8). When evening data were analyzed separately to evaluate PAR over daytime, NNT was 5.3. Wound healing parameters and adverse events were comparable. In conclusion, in this study, the ibuprofen foam dressing provided clinically relevant PAR for patients with exuding, painful venous ulcers.

Topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1 per cent of people at some time in their lives. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. As these ulcers are often painful some clinicians choose particular dressings and topical treatments (analgesia/ local anaesthetic) to reduce the pain both during and between dressing changes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of dressings, local anaesthetics or topical analgesia for pain relief in venous leg ulceration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update the search strings were revised and the following databases were searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (Searched 16/12/09) The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library Issue 4 2009; Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to November Week 3 2009; Ovid EMBASE - 1980 to 2009 Week 50; EBSCO CINAHL - 1982 to December 16 2009. No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which evaluated local interventions used to relieve venous leg ulcer pain were considered. Pain was defined as either persistent pain or pain at dressing changes or debridement. Ulcer healing and reported adverse events were also considered as further outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligibility for inclusion was confirmed by two review authors who independently assessed the potential trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials evaluating interventions for persistent venous leg ulcer pain were identified for this review update. Both studies evaluated ibuprofen slow release foam dressings; one comparing it with local best practice and the other with an identical foam comparator. The primary end point for both studies was "pain relief achieved". When compared with a foam dressing alone, there was no evidence of a statistically significant effect of the ibuprofen foam dressing in terms of achieving some pain relief the first evening after treatment: 74% in the ibuprofen group (46/62) had pain relief compared with 58% (35/60) in the foam group (no significant difference: RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.65). In the second study 100% (32/32) of people with venous ulcers achieved some pain relief with the ibuprofen dressing on the first evening of treatment compared with 93% (26/28) in the local best practice group (no significant difference: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21). Pooling these studies in a meta-analysis (using a random effects model as significant heterogeneity present (p=0.1), I(2) = 64%) there is no evidence that ibuprofen dressings increase the pain relief experienced by the first evening of use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44). We were not able to extract sufficient data to combine other pain outcomes from these trials. There was no difference in healing rates but slightly more adverse events with ibuprofen dressings than with a similar foam dressing without ibuprofen.Six trials evaluated interventions for the pain associated with debridement and were considered sufficiently similar to pool. There was a statistically significant reduction in debridement pain scores with 5% Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA): lidocaine-prilocaine cream; the difference in means (measured on a 100 mm scale) was 20.6 mm (95% CI 12.19 to 29.11). Of these six trials, only one small trial measured healing as an outcome and found no difference in the numbers of ulcers healed at the end of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that ibuprofen dressings offer pain relief, as measured at the first evening of use, to people with painful venous leg ulcers compared with foam dressings or best practice.EMLA appears to provide effective pain relief for venous leg ulcer debridement but the effect (if any) of EMLA on ulcer healing remains unknown.