Early versus late dressing removal in clean and contaminated midline laparotomy wounds: a non-randomized pilot study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20183722Keywords:
Early dressing removal, Late dressing removal, Postoperative stay, Quality of life, Surgical site infection, Wound dehiscenceAbstract
Background: This study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of early versus late dressing removal in clean and contaminated midline laparotomy wounds.
Methods: Fifty patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted and operated for surgical procedures (both emergency and elective) were included in the study. All laparotomy wounds had fulfilled the CDC criteria. Twenty-five patients each were included in early dressing removal group and the late removal group. In early removal group, the laparotomy wound dressing was removed within 48 hours and in late removal group, was removed after 48 hours of surgery. The incidences of superficial and deep surgical site infection (SSI) in both groups were analysed. Other secondary parameters like incidence of wound dehiscence and secondary suturing were also analysed.
Results: Twenty-five patients each, in early removal group and in late removal group were included for final analysis. The incidence of superficial SSI (%) was significantly less in early removal group (65.50 versus 89.50; p= <0.001). The duration (days) required for complete wound healing (8.52 versus 10.65; p=0.734) was significantly less in the early removal group. The length of postoperative hospital stay (days) was significantly less in early removal group (10.30 versus 14.90; p= <0.001).
Conclusions: Early removal of dressing significantly reduces the incidence of superficial SSI in midline clean and contaminated laparotomy wounds. It also significantly reduces the duration required for complete wound healing and facilitates early discharge of the patient compared to late dressing removal.
References
Toon CD, Ramamoorthy R, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 5(9): CD010259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010259.pub2.
Lisy, Karolina. Early vs. Delayed Removal of Dressings Covering Surgical Wounds. AJN The American Journal of Nursing: 2014; 114 (8). p 23.doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000453038.93499.69
Toon CD1, Sinha S, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Early versus delayed post-operative bathing or showering to prevent wound complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 23(7): CD010075. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010075.pub3.
Eberhardt D, Berg A, Fleischer S, Langer G. Timing of dressing removal in the healing of surgical wounds by primary intention: a meta-analysis. Pflege. 2013;26(4):255-69. doi: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000304.
Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, Sharp CA, Page T, Macefield R, Blencowe N, Milne TK, Reeves BC, Blazeby J. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 20(12):. CD003091. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003091.pub4.
Gavin NC, Webster J, Chan RJ, Rickard CM. Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 ;1(2) . CD009213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009213.pub2.
Norman G, Dumville JC, Mohapatra DP, Owens GL, Crosbie EJ. Antibiotics and antiseptics for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 :29(3): CD011712. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011712.pub2.
Toon CD, Lusuku C, Ramamoorthy R, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 3(9): CD010259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010259.pub3.
Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, Sharp CA, Page T. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1(9):CD003091. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003091.pub3.
Dumville JC, Walter CJ, Sharp CA, Page T. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 ;6(7). CD003091. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003091.pub2.
