Simple Wound Irrigation in the Postoperative Treatment for Surgically Drained Spontaneous Soft Tissue Abscesses: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

Bidirectional Irrigation System to Treat a Difficult Wound: A Case Series

AIMS

To date, there is no distinct principle determining whether to use irrigation under negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). We developed a new economical device to manage difficult wounds, employing 1 of 2 techniques depending on the wound condition.

METHODS

This case series study was conducted in 12 patients with difficult wound, from 2017 to 2018. Four patients were treated with Type A bidirectional irrigation system (wound irrigation), while 8 patients were treated with Type B bidirectional irrigation system (wound irrigation combined with NPWT).

RESULTS

In the Type A device group, inflammatory profiles in case I, case IV, and case VIII were not monitored due to the stability of their wound. The mean recovery period was 3.75 weeks (2-8 weeks), with decreases in 100% healing rate. In the Type B device group, we noted an average of 71% reduction in inflammatory profiles. All patients' infections were resolved or were healing, and 7 patients recovered satisfactorily. The recovery period ranged from 4 to 17 weeks, with a median value of 7 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Bidirectional irrigation system decreases secondary infections and complications, and increases the healing rate in patients with difficult wound.

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 is not thought to interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in community settings for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost-effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water for wound cleansing.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fifth update, in May 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; 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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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 included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed wound cleansing using different types of water (e.g. tap water, distilled, boiled) compared with no cleansing or with other solutions (e.g. normal saline). For this update, we excluded quasi-RCTs, thereby removing some studies which had been included in the previous version of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials in this update including a total of 2504 participants ranging in age from two to 95 years. Participants in the trials experienced open fractures, surgical wounds, traumatic wounds, anal fissures and chronic wounds. The trials were conducted in six different countries with the majority conducted in India and the USA. Three trials involving 148 participants compared cleansing with tap water with no cleansing. Eight trials involving 2204 participants assessed cleansing with tap water compared with cleansing with normal saline. Two trials involving 152 participants assessed cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with normal saline.  One trial involving 51 participants also assessed cleansing with cooled boiled water compared with cleansing with normal saline, and cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with cooled boiled water. Wound infection: no trials reported on wound infection for the comparison cleansing with tap water versus no cleansing. For all wounds, eight trials found the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.19); very low-certainty evidence. Two trials comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that the effect on the number of fractures that were infected is uncertain (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09); very low-certainty evidence. One trial compared the use of cooled boiled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.87); very low-certainty evidence. This trial also compared the use of distilled water with cooled boiled water and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47); very low-certainty evidence. Wound healing: results from three trials comparing the use of tap water with no wound cleansing demonstrated there may be little or no difference in the number of wounds that did not heal between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence. The effect of tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain; two trials were pooled (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.07) but the certainty of the evidence is very low. Results from one study comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that there may be little or no difference in the number of fractures that healed (RR could not be estimated, all wounds healed); the certainty of the evidence is low. Reduction in wound size: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound size reduction is uncertain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.68); the certainty of the evidence is very low. Rate of wound healing: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound healing rate is uncertain (mean difference (MD) -3.06, 95% CI -6.70 to 0.58); the certainty of the evidence is very low.

COSTS

two trials reported cost analyses but the cost-effectiveness of tap water compared with the use of normal saline is uncertain; the certainty of the evidence is very low. Pain: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in pain scores. The certainty of the evidence is low. Patient satisfaction: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in patient satisfaction. The certainty of evidence is low. The effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All the evidence identified in the review was low or very low certainty. Cleansing with tap water may make little or no difference to wound healing compared with no cleansing; there are no data relating to the impact on wound infection. The effects of cleansing with tap water, cooled boiled water or distilled water compared with cleansing with saline are uncertain, as is the effect of distilled water compared with cooled boiled water. Data for other outcomes are limited across all the comparisons considered and are either uncertain or suggest that there may be little or no difference in the outcome.

Simple Wound Irrigation in the Postoperative Treatment for Surgically Drained Spontaneous Soft Tissue Abscesses: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue abscesses are among the most frequently encountered medical problems treated by different surgeons. Standard therapy remains incision and drainage with sterile saline irrigation during postoperative wound healing period. Aim of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to compare sterile irrigation versus nonsterile irrigation.

STUDY DESIGN

A single center randomized controlled trial was performed to investigate postoperative wound irrigation. The control group used sterile irrigation, and the intervention group used nonsterile irrigation. Primary endpoints were reinfection and reintervention rates, assessed during follow-up controls for up to 2 years. Secondary endpoints were the duration of wound healing, inability to work, pain and quality of life.

RESULTS

Between 04/2016 and 05/2017, 118 patients were randomized into two groups, with 61 allocated to the control- and 57 to the intervention group. Reinfection occurred in a total of 4 cases (6.6%) in the sterile protocol and 4 (7%) in the nonsterile protocol. Quality of life and pain values were comparable during the wound healing period, and patients treated according to the nonsterile irrigation protocol used significantly fewer wound care service teams. Despite equal wound persistence rates, a substantially shorter amount of time off from work was reported in the nonsterile protocol group (p value 0.086).

CONCLUSION

This prospective, randomized trial indicates that a nonsterile irrigation protocol for patients operated on for soft tissue abscesses is not inferior to the standard sterile protocol. Moreover, a nonsterile irrigation protocol leads to a shorter period of inability to work with comparable pain and quality of life scores during the wound healing period.

Swiss chocolate and free beverages to increase the motivation for scientific work amongst residents: a prospective interventional study in a non-academic teaching hospital in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

The success of a clinical trial depends on its recruitment of eligible patients; therefore, the recruitment period requires special attention. We hypothesized that with a new approach focused on continuous information and gratification, resident motivation to participate in scientific work will increase and recruitment rates will improve.

METHODS

Our new recruitment approach was applied to the recruitment phase of two prospective randomized trials (registered at the German Clinical Trials Register). Randomization of these trials was performed first using blinded envelopes; later a soft drink machine was used as the delivery tool of randomization as a lighthearted motivation to join scientific work and to reward the resident with free soft drinks for each recruitment. Residents were informed about the trial via a lecture and by mail. To increase interest everyone received Swiss chocolate. With a multiple choice survey we investigated the success of our actions at 6 and 12 months. Recruitment rates of the trials were evaluated and associated with the motivational approaches.

RESULTS

Our residents rated their awareness of the trials with median 9 (IQR 7;9) during the first and 8 (IQR 5;9) during the second survey and their interest in scientific work with median 7 (IQR 4;8) and 6 (IQR 5;8). The percentage of residents feeling highly motivated improved from 58% to 70%. The recruitment rates stayed stably high over time with 73% and 72% in trial 1 and 90% and 85% in trial 2; 24% of residents stated their motivation could be increased by gratifications.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementation of our new recruitment approach we found positively motivated residents and high recruitment rates in the corresponding trials. We propose this procedure may help to ensure the successful initiation of clinical trials. Larger studies testing this approach are warranted.

International survey evaluating treatment of primary superficial skin abscesses

INTRODUCTION

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI) present regularly as cutaneous abscesses which require surgical drainage. These abscesses often affect younger patients and interfere with their independency substantially. Existing guidelines display heterogeneous recommendations concerning surgical aftercare. Primary aim of this survey was to present a nomogram for standard abscess therapy based on international expert opinions.

METHOD

An online survey dealing with standard of care protocols for cutaneous abscesses concerning surgical treatment and aftercare was created. The survey was conducted in 2017 during two international conferences held in Switzerland.

RESULT

490 surgeons originating from 66 nations participated in this survey with the majority coming from Europe and Asia. Indication for surgery, operation type, and wound rinsing were answered homogeneously. Perioperative setting (45% sterile, 55% semi-sterile), anesthesia (45% local, 55% general), antibiotic therapy (38% always, 35% never, 27% other), irrigation fluid (54% sterile, 32% non-sterile, 14% antiseptic), irrigation frequency (55% once daily, 30% twice daily), and wound dressing (69% packing, 31% coverage) were heterogeneously answered topics.

CONCLUSION

Treatment and aftercare of simple primary skin abscesses are processed heterogeneously throughout the world. Focus should be on optimal patient focused treatment with minimal socio-economic impact. Future studies should focus on the validation of the different postoperative treatment options with the aim to develop a socio-economically accepted algorithm.