JBI library of systematic reviews · 2004
Effectiveness of solutions, techniques and pressure in wound cleansing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fernandez Ritin, Griffiths Rhonda, Ussia Cheryl
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This systematic review updates a previous review published in 2001. Cleansing is a vital component of wound management; however; little attention has been give to the solutions and techniques used for cleansing purposes. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of different solutions, pressures and techniques used for wound cleansing to prevent infection and promote wound healing.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised and clinical controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Additional searches of other databases and hand searches of journals and bibliographies was undertaken to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and clinical controlled trials involving adults and/or children whose wounds were cleaned with commercial cleansers, normal saline, water, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised solutions for preoperative skin cleansing, compared solutions for burns or dental procedures, and those that compared dressings for patients with ulcers were excluded from this review. Outcomes included rate of healing, incidence of infections or levels of bacterial count. Selection of potential articles, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. The data were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review.
RESULTS: Fourteen randomised controlled trials were included that compared various solutions for wound cleansing. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the infection and healing rates in acute and chronic wounds cleansed with either tap water or normal saline. An irrigation pressure of 13 psi is effective for cleansing wounds and reducing infection without causing tissue trauma.There were no studies comparing common techniques for wound cleansing such as swabbing or scrubbing. Showering postoperative wounds did not demonstrate any difference in infection rates; however, it increased the morale of the patient. Whirlpool therapy was effective in reducing inflammation and pain in surgical wounds.
CONCLUSIONS: These conclusions are based on the best available clinical evidence. However, there is an urgent need to support these findings with rigorous research as some of the conclusions are based on single studies with limited sample sizes.Solutions for wound cleansing:Pressure for wound cleansing:Techniques for wound cleansing.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised and clinical controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Additional searches of other databases and hand searches of journals and bibliographies was undertaken to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and clinical controlled trials involving adults and/or children whose wounds were cleaned with commercial cleansers, normal saline, water, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised solutions for preoperative skin cleansing, compared solutions for burns or dental procedures, and those that compared dressings for patients with ulcers were excluded from this review. Outcomes included rate of healing, incidence of infections or levels of bacterial count. Selection of potential articles, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. The data were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review.
RESULTS: Fourteen randomised controlled trials were included that compared various solutions for wound cleansing. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the infection and healing rates in acute and chronic wounds cleansed with either tap water or normal saline. An irrigation pressure of 13 psi is effective for cleansing wounds and reducing infection without causing tissue trauma.There were no studies comparing common techniques for wound cleansing such as swabbing or scrubbing. Showering postoperative wounds did not demonstrate any difference in infection rates; however, it increased the morale of the patient. Whirlpool therapy was effective in reducing inflammation and pain in surgical wounds.
CONCLUSIONS: These conclusions are based on the best available clinical evidence. However, there is an urgent need to support these findings with rigorous research as some of the conclusions are based on single studies with limited sample sizes.Solutions for wound cleansing:Pressure for wound cleansing:Techniques for wound cleansing.