Wounds Group Research Articles

Topical haemoglobin spray for diabetic foot ulceration.

The development and subsequent deterioration of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a common occurrence across all healthcare divides, concerning all patient groups, age, gender and social environments. It increases demand on clinical resources and creates unnecessary hardship for patients. Chronic DFU is challenging to prevent and notoriously difficult to manage owing to the complex nature of the patient and the disease itself. The improvement of oxygenation to many chronic wound groups is gaining momentum across wound care; particularly in those wounds such as DFU that present with circulatory, oxygen-deficient scenarios. A descriptive evaluation was undertaken in an acute clinical setting where a spray solution containing purified haemoglobin was used in a cohort of 20 patients who presented with chronic (>12 weeks) DFU. Standard wound care was undertaken by 18 health professionals with no changes to products, devices or practice before evaluation. All wounds received the addition of the product on eight set occasions over a 4-week period and the resulting data correlated in regards to the set outcomes of wound surface area reduction, ease of use, adverse events and patient acceptability. At 4 weeks all wounds had demonstrated positive wound reduction, there were no adverse events, all patients and clinicians found the product acceptable and easy to use. Interestingly, although not a set outcome, all wounds commenced the evaluation with wound-bed slough present and at 4 weeks 100% were deemed slough free. At a further 4-week review no patients wounds had regressed. The incorporation of a haemoglobin spray solution within this cohort of DFU resulted in a positive improvement in wound healing and slough elimination. Further work in this area is recommended to increase the evidence.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds.

Chronic wounds are common and present a health problem with significant effect on quality of life. Various pathologies may cause tissue breakdown, including poor blood supply resulting in inadequate oxygenation of the wound bed. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to improve oxygen supply to wounds and therefore improve their healing. To assess the benefits and harms of adjunctive HBOT for treating chronic ulcers of the lower limb. For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 February 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE(1946 to 17 February 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 17 February 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 17 February 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect on chronic wound healing of therapeutic regimens which include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT (with or without sham therapy). Three review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of the relevant trials using the Cochrane methodology and extracted the data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreement by discussion. We included twelve trials (577 participants). Ten trials (531 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of five trials with 205 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.62; P = 0.01) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We identified one trial (30 participants) which enrolled patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers as well as venous ulcers ("mixed ulcers types") and patients were treated for 30 days. For this "mixed ulcers" there was a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area at the end of treatment (30 days) (MD 61.88%, 95% CI 41.91 to 81.85, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers. In people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.

Massage therapy for preventing pressure ulcers.

Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of patients in hospitals and the elderly are at highest risk. Several studies have suggested that massage therapy may help to prevent the development of pressure ulcers, but these results are inconsistent. To assess the evidence for the effects of massage compared with placebo, standard care or other interventions for prevention of pressure ulcers in at-risk populations.The review sought to answer the following questions:Does massage reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers of any grade?Is massage safe in the short- and long-term? If not, what are the adverse events associated with massage? We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (8 January 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 8 January 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process Other Non-Indexed Citations 8 January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 8 January 2015), and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 8 January 2015). We did not apply date or language restrictions. We planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that evaluated the effects of massage therapy for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer of any grade. Two review authors independently carried out trial selection. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. No studies (RCTs or Q-RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Therefore, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible. There are currently no studies eligible for inclusion in this review. It is, therefore, unclear whether massage therapy can prevent pressure ulcers.

Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications.

A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically. To assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure. We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015). RCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices. It is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.

Following surgery, incisions are usually closed by fixing the edges together with sutures (stitches), staples, adhesive glue or clips. This process helps the cut edges heal together and is called 'healing by primary intention'. However, not all incised wounds are closed in this way: where there is high risk of infection, or when there has been significant tissue loss, wounds may be left open to heal from the 'bottom up'. This delayed healing is known as 'healing by secondary intention'. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is one treatment option for surgical wounds that are healing by secondary intention. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the healing of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI) in any care setting. For this review, in May 2015 we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 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. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of SWHSI. We excluded open abdominal wounds from this review as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane review that is in draft. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We located two studies (69 participants) for inclusion in this review. One study compared NPWT with an alginate dressing in the treatment of open, infected groin wounds. and one study compared NPWT with a silicone dressing in the treatment of excised pilonidal sinus. The trials reported limited outcome data on healing, adverse events and resource use. There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention as defined in this review. The potential benefits and harms of using this treatment for this wound type remain largely uncertain.

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

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 there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. 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. To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. For this review, in April 2015 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. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers.

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. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: 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. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing'. One study had a 24-week follow-up period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more 'Risk of bias' domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events. There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the effects of NPWT compared with alternatives for the treatment of pressure ulcers. High uncertainty remains about the potential benefits or harms, or both, of using this treatment for pressure ulcer management.

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection.

Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery.

Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective. To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics. For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12). Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors. There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low. A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Efficacy of wound analgesia for controlling post-thoracotomy pain: a randomized double-blind study†.

Continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetics has been successfully applied for postoperative pain control in several procedures but, surprisingly, it is underused in thoracic surgery. We aimed to investigate the effects of wound analgesia associated with systemic patient-controlled analgesia in patients undergoing lung cancer resection with muscle-sparing thoracotomy. Sixty consecutive patients undergoing lung cancer resection via standard muscle-sparing thoracotomy were randomized into two groups (wound analgesia and placebo groups). Bupivacaine in the wound group and free-saline solution in the placebo group were injected using a multiholed catheter connected to an elastomeric pump inserted at the end of operation between the pericostal sutures and the serratus muscle and removed 48 h after. The inter-group differences were assessed by the following criteria: (i) level of cytokines [IL-6, IL-10 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha)]; (ii) pain on a visual analogue scale at rest and after coughing; (iii) recovery of respiratory functions (flow expiratory volume in 1 s % and forced vital capacity %) and (iv) narcotic medication consumption at different time points of the postoperative course. Five out of a total of 60 patients were excluded from the final analysis. Thus, the wound and placebo groups comprised 27 and 28 patients, respectively. The wound group compared with the placebo group had a significant decrease of IL-6 (P < 0.001), IL-10 (P < 0.001) and TNF-alpha (P < 0.001) blood concentration levels, pain scores at rest (P < 0.001) and after coughing (P = 0.01), and a reduction of additional morphine intake (P = 0.03) and Ketorolac (P = 0.01) during the entire postoperative course. The recovery of the flow expiratory volume in one second % (P = 0.01) and the forced vital capacity % (P = 0.02) was also better in the wound than in the placebo group. Our data prove that wound analgesia is an effective, easy and safe procedure. It significantly reduces systemic inflammatory markers, pain scores and opioid intake; and accelerates the recovery of respiratory function. Catheter placement does not require particular manoeuvres by the surgeon nor does the elastomeric pump need any adjustment or care by physicians or nurses.

Hydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

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 there are many different dressing options including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of the current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on the healing of pressure ulcers in any care setting. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 June 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June Week 2 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 23 June 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 June 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2014). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of hydrogel dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias. It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.

Skin preparation with alcohol versus alcohol followed by any antiseptic for preventing bacteraemia or contamination of blood for transfusion.

Blood for transfusion may become contaminated at any point between collection and transfusion and may result in bacteraemia (the presence of bacteria in the blood), severe illness or even death for the blood recipient. Donor arm skin is one potential source of blood contamination, so it is usual to cleanse the skin with an antiseptic before blood donation. One-step and two-step alcohol based antiseptic regimens are both commonly advocated but there is uncertainty as to which is most effective. To assess the effects of cleansing the skin of blood donors with alcohol in a one-step compared with alcohol in a two-step procedure to prevent contamination of collected blood or bacteraemia in the recipient. In December 2014, for this third update, we searched 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. All randomised trials (RCTs) comparing alcohol based donor skin cleansing in a one-step versus a two-step process that includes alcohol and any other antiseptic for pre-venepuncture skin cleansing were considered. Quasi randomised trials were to have been considered in the absence of RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. No studies (RCTs or quasi RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this review. It is therefore unclear whether a two-step, alcohol followed by antiseptic skin cleansing process prior to blood donation confers any reduction in the risk of blood contamination or bacteraemia in blood recipients, or conversely whether a one-step process increases risk above that associated with a two-step process.

Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers.

Pressure, from lying or sitting on a particular part of the body results in reduced oxygen and nutrient supply, impaired drainage of waste products and damage to cells. If a patient with an existing pressure ulcer continues to lie or bear weight on the affected area, the tissues become depleted of blood flow and there is no oxygen or nutrient supply to the wound, and no removal of waste products from the wound, all of which are necessary for healing. Patients who cannot reposition themselves require assistance. International best practice advocates the use of repositioning as an integral component of a pressure ulcer management strategy. This review has been conducted to clarify the role of repositioning in the management of patients with pressure ulcers. To assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 28 August 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to August Week 3 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 29 August, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 29 August, 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 27 August 2014). We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing repositioning with no repositioning, or RCTs comparing different repositioning techniques, or RCTs comparing different repositioning frequencies for the review. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were only to be considered in the absence of RCTs. Two authors independently assessed titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria. We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. Despite the widespread use of repositioning as a component of the management plan for individuals with existing pressure ulcers, no randomised trials exist that assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether repositioning patients improves the healing rates of pressure ulcers. The effect of repositioning on pressure ulcer healing needs to be evaluated.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infectious complications in orthognathic surgery.

Orthognathic surgery (OS) is a term that refers to many elective surgical techniques to correct facial deformity; the associated malocclusion and functional disorders related to the stomatognathic system. Whilst such surgery is classed as "clean-contaminated", the usefulness of and the most appropriate regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in these patients are still debated. To assess the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infection (SSI) in people undergoing orthognathic surgery. In June 2014, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process &amp; Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched Google Scholar and performed manual searches in journals relevant to the topic, conference proceedings and lists of references of potentially included articles. We did not restrict the search and study selection with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people undergoing orthognathic surgery comparing one regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis with any other regimen or placebo. The primary outcome was SSI, and secondary outcomes were systemic infections, adverse events, duration of hospital stay and health-related quality of life. Two review authors screened articles independently. Data were abstracted independently by two review authors, and agreement was checked. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Antibiotic regimens were classified as preoperative (one dose before surgery), short-term (before or during surgery and/or during the same day of surgery) and long-term (before or during surgery and longer than one day after surgery) antibiotic prophylaxis. Random-effects meta-analyses using inverse variance methods were undertaken when possible. We report risk ratios (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 11 trials were included in this review. Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for our outcomes. Seven of these trials provided evidence for the main comparison and the primary outcome and these were pooled. Overall, long-term antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of SSI (plausible effects range between a 76% to a 0.26% relative reduction in SSI with long-term antibiotic prophylaxis) (472 participants; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; moderate-quality evidence). There is uncertainty surrounding the relative effects of short-term antibiotics compared with a single dose (220 participants; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.22; low-quality evidence). No reports described adverse effects associated with the drugs in those trials that reported in this outcome. None of these trials assessed or reported data regarding other outcomes, and information was insufficient to show whether a specific antibiotic is better than another. For people undergoing orthognathic surgery, long term antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of SSI compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis and the is uncertainty of whether short-term antibiotic prophylaxis decreases SSi risk relative to a single pre-operative dose of prophylactic antibiotics.

Intravenous esmolol versus ropivacaine abdominal wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia after inguinal herniotomy: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study was designed as a randomized comparison of postoperative pain after inguinal herniotomy in patients treated with intravenous esmolol and others treated with ropivacaine abdominal wound infiltration. Patients and methods Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients undergoing herniotomy and anesthetized with isoflurane were randomized into one of two groups. Group R received 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.75% in 20 ml of saline 0.9% preincisional wound infiltration and group E patients received a bolus of esmolol 0.5 mg/kg intravenous at induction followed by an infusion of 5-15 mg/kg/min. After surgery, a bolus of pethidine was given according to visual analogue scale for pain intensity. Results Patients in group E had lower pain scores than patients in group R. Median consumption of pethidine was higher in group R than in group E. Conclusion Intravenous esmolol reduces pethidine consumption and provides more analgesia compared with preincisional ropivacaine infiltration in patients undergoing herniotomy.

Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.

Ulceration of the feet, which can result in loss of limbs and even death, is one of the major health problems for people with diabetes mellitus. To assess the effects of patient education on the prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 03 September 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8). Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated educational programmes for preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. Two review authors independently undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary end points were foot ulceration or ulcer recurrence and amputation. Of the 12 RCTs included, the effect of patient education on primary end points was reported in only five. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. One of the RCTs showed reduced incidence of foot ulceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.66) and amputation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) during one-year follow-up of diabetes patients at high risk of foot ulceration after a one-hour group education session. However, one similar study, with lower risk of bias, did not confirm this finding (RR amputation 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; RR ulceration 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). Three other studies, also did not demonstrate any effect of education on the primary end points, but were most likely underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self-reported self-care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. Callus, nail problems and fungal infections improved in only one of five RCTs. Only one of the included RCTs was at low risk of bias. In some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. Yet, based on the only two sufficiently powered studies reporting the effect of patient education on primary end points, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence.

Negative pressure wound therapy for partial-thickness burns.

A burn wound is a complex and evolving injury, with both local and systemic consequences. Burn treatments include a variety of dressings, as well as newer strategies, such as negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), which, by means of a suction force that drains excess fluids from the burn, tries to promote the wound healing process and minimise progression of the burn wound. To assess the effectiveness of NPWT for people with partial-thickness burns. We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 04 September 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8). All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of NPWT for partial-thickness burns. Two review authors used standardised forms, and extracted the data independently. We assessed each trial for risk of bias, and resolved differences by discussion. One RCT, that was an interim report, satisfied the inclusion criteria. We undertook a narrative synthesis of results, as the absence of data and poor reporting precluded us from carrying out any formal statistical analysis. The trial was at high risk of bias. There was not enough evidence available to permit any conclusions to be drawn regarding the use of NPWT for treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds.

Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.

The frequency of skin ulceration makes it an important contributor to the morbidity burden in people with sickle cell disease. Many treatment options are available to the healthcare professional, although it is uncertain which treatments have been assessed for effectiveness in people with sickle cell disease. To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register.We searched LILACS (1982 to August 2012), the African Index Medicus (up to August 2012), ISI Web of Knowledge (1985 to August 2012), and the Clinical Trials Search Portal of the World Health Organization (August 2012). We checked the reference lists of all the trials identified. We also contacted those groups or individuals who may have completed relevant randomised trials in this area.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 21 July 2014; date of the last search of the Cochrane Wounds Group Trials Register: 18 September 2014. Randomised controlled trials of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease compared to placebo or an alternative treatment. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion. All three authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Six studies met the inclusion criteria (198 participants with 250 ulcers). Each trial investigated a different intervention and within this review we have grouped these as systemic pharmaceutical interventions (L-cartinine, arginine butyrate, isoxsuprine) and topical pharmaceutical interventions (Solcoseryl(®) cream, RGD peptide dressing, topical antibiotics). Three interventions reported on the change in ulcer size (arginine butyrate, RGD peptide, L-cartinine). Of these, RGD peptide matrix significantly reduced ulcer size compared with a control group, mean reduction 6.60cm(2) (95% CI 5.51 to 7.69; very low quality of evidence). Three trials reported on the incidence of complete closure (isoxsuprine, arginine butyrate, RGD peptide matrix; ranging between low and very low quality of evidence). None reported a significant effect. No trial reported on: the time to complete ulcer healing; ulcer-free survival following treatment for sickle cell leg ulcers; quality of life measures; or incidence of amputation. There was no reported information on the safety of these interventions. There is evidence that a topical intervention (RGD peptide matrix) reduced ulcer size in treated participants compared to controls. This evidence of efficacy is limited by the generally high risk of bias associated with these reports.We planned to analyse results according to general groups: pharmaceutical interventions (systemic and topical); and non-pharmaceutical interventions (surgical and non-surgical). However, we were unable to pool findings due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions, and inconsistency between the unit of randomisation and the unit of analysis. This heterogeneity, along with a paucity of identified trials, prevented us performing any meta-analyses.This Cochrane review provides some evidence for the effectiveness of one topical intervention - RGD peptide matrix. However, this intervention was assessed as having a high risk of bias due to inadequacies in the single trial report. Other included studies were also assessed as having a high risk of bias. We recommend that readers interpret the trial results with caution. The safety profile of the all interventions was inconclusive.

Aloe vera for treating acute and chronic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Aloe vera is a cactus-like perennial succulent belonging to the Liliaceae Family that is commonly grown in tropical climates. Animal studies have suggested that Aloe vera may help accelerate the wound healing process. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of Aloe vera-derived products (for example dressings and topical gels) on the healing of acute wounds (for example lacerations, surgical incisions and burns) and chronic wounds (for example infected wounds, arterial and venous ulcers). METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (9 September 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (2005 to August Week 5 2011), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 8 September 2011), Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2010 Week 35), Ovid AMED (1985 to September 2011) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 9 September 2011). We did not apply date or language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of Aloe vera, aloe-derived products and a combination of Aloe vera and other dressings as a treatment for acute or chronic wounds. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. An objective measure of wound healing (either proportion of completely healed wounds or time to complete healing) was the primary endpoint. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, checked by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were eligible for inclusion, comprising a total of 347 participants. Five trials in people with acute wounds evaluated the effects of Aloe vera on burns, haemorrhoidectomy patients and skin biopsies. Aloe vera mucilage did not increase burn healing compared with silver sulfadiazine (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 2.85). A reduction in healing time with Aloe vera was noted after haemorrhoidectomy (RR 16.33 days, 95% CI 3.46 to 77.15) and there was no difference in the proportion of patients completely healed at follow up after skin biopsies. In people with chronic wounds, one trial found no statistically significant difference in pressure ulcer healing with Aloe vera (RR 0.10, 95% CI -1.59 to 1.79) and in a trial of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention Aloe vera significantly delayed healing (mean difference 30 days, 95% CI 7.59 to 52.41). Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. The poor quality of the included trials indicates that the trial results must be viewed with extreme caution as they have a high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently an absence of high quality clinical trial evidence to support the use of Aloe vera topical agents or Aloe vera dressings as treatments for acute and chronic wounds

Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions.

Sutures (stitches), staples and adhesive tapes have been used for many years as methods of wound closure, but tissue adhesives have entered clinical practice more recently. Closure of wounds with sutures enables the closure to be meticulous, but the sutures may show tissue reactivity and can require removal. Tissue adhesives offer the advantages of an absence of risk of needlestick injury and no requirement to remove sutures later. Initially, tissue adhesives were used primarily in emergency room settings, but this review looks at the use of tissue adhesives in the operating room/theatre where surgeons are using them increasingly for the closure of surgical skin incisions. To determine the effects of various tissue adhesives compared with conventional skin closure techniques for the closure of surgical wounds. In March 2014 for this second update we searched 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. We did not restrict the search and study selection with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. We conducted screening of eligible studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. We expressed results as random-effects models using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We investigated heterogeneity, including both clinical and methodological factors. This second update of the review identified 19 additional eligible trials resulting in a total of 33 studies (2793 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. There was low quality evidence that sutures were significantly better than tissue adhesives for reducing the risk of wound breakdown (dehiscence; RR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53 to 7.33; 10 trials, 736 participants that contributed data to the meta-analysis). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was calculated as 43. For all other outcomes - infection, patient and operator satisfaction and cost - there was no evidence of a difference for either sutures or tissue adhesives. No evidence of differences was found between tissue adhesives and tapes for minimising dehiscence, infection, patients' assessment of cosmetic appearance, patient satisfaction or surgeon satisfaction. However there was evidence in favour of using tape for surgeons' assessment of cosmetic appearance (mean difference (VAS 0 to 100) 9.56 (95% CI 4.74 to 14.37; 2 trials, 139 participants). One trial compared tissue adhesives with a variety of methods of wound closure and found both patients and clinicians were significantly more satisfied with the alternative closure methods than the adhesives. There appeared to be little difference in outcome for different types of tissue adhesives. One study that compared high viscosity with low viscosity adhesives found that high viscosity adhesives were less time-consuming to use than low viscosity tissue adhesives, but the time difference was small. Sutures are significantly better than tissue adhesives for minimising dehiscence. In some cases tissue adhesives may be quicker to apply than sutures. Although surgeons may consider the use of tissue adhesives as an alternative to other methods of surgical site closure in the operating theatre, they need to be aware that sutures minimise dehiscence. There is a need for more well designed randomised controlled trials comparing tissue adhesives with alternative methods of closure. These trials should include people whose health may interfere with wound healing and surgical sites of high tension.