Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018
Evaluation of Absorbent Versus Conventional Wound Dressing.
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.
Bredow Jan, Hoffmann Katharina, Oppermann Johannes, Hellmich Martin, Eysel Peer, Zarghooni Kourosh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lower-limb endoprosthetic operations and spinal operations are among the more common types of orthopedic procedures. Postoperative woundhealing disturbances and infections can lead to longer periods of hospital stay and recovery as well as to higher morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: 209 patients who had been judged to have an indication for a primary knee or hip endoprosthesis or for a primary spinal operation were included in this randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01988818) over the period June 2014- February 2015. After randomization, patients in the intervention group were given a trial dressing (Mepilex-Border Post-Op) and those in the control group were given a conventional adhesive dressing (Cosmopor). The primary endpoint was blister formation.
RESULTS: In the overall study population, only a single case of blister formation was seen. The affected patient belonged to the intervention group but was mistakenly given a control dressing and developed blisters on the 6th day after surgery. Dressings were changed less frequently in the intervention group, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The patients, nurses, and physicians all expressed greater satisfaction with the trial dressings than with the control dressings (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The intervention group did not differ from the control group with respect to the primary endpoint, postoperative blister formation. The patients, nurses, and physicians all judged the dressing used in the intervention group more favorably than the conventional dressing.
METHODS: 209 patients who had been judged to have an indication for a primary knee or hip endoprosthesis or for a primary spinal operation were included in this randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01988818) over the period June 2014- February 2015. After randomization, patients in the intervention group were given a trial dressing (Mepilex-Border Post-Op) and those in the control group were given a conventional adhesive dressing (Cosmopor). The primary endpoint was blister formation.
RESULTS: In the overall study population, only a single case of blister formation was seen. The affected patient belonged to the intervention group but was mistakenly given a control dressing and developed blisters on the 6th day after surgery. Dressings were changed less frequently in the intervention group, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The patients, nurses, and physicians all expressed greater satisfaction with the trial dressings than with the control dressings (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The intervention group did not differ from the control group with respect to the primary endpoint, postoperative blister formation. The patients, nurses, and physicians all judged the dressing used in the intervention group more favorably than the conventional dressing.