The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences of, and preferences for, surgical wound care discharge education and how these experiences predicted their ability to self-manage their surgical wounds. A telephone survey of 270 surgical patients was conducted across two hospitals two weeks after discharge. Patients preferred verbal (n = 255, 94.8%) and written surgical wound education (n = 178, 66.2%) from medical (n = 229, 85.4%) and nursing staff (n = 211, 78.7%) at discharge. The most frequent education content that patients received was information about follow-up appointments (n = 242, 89.6%) and who to contact in the community with wound care concerns (n = 233, 86.6%). Using logistic regression, patients who perceived that they participated in surgical wound care decisions were 6.5 times more likely to state that they were able to manage their wounds at home. Also, patients who agreed that medical and/or nursing staff discussed wound pain management were 3.1 times more likely to report being able to manage their surgical wounds at home. Only 40% (107/270) of patients actively participated in wound-related decision-making during discharge education. These results uncovered patient preferences, which could be used to optimise discharge education practices. Embedding patient participation into clinical workflows may enhance patients' self-management practices once home.
BACKGROUND: The evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and ambiguous. Implementation in daily practice is impaired by inconsistent recommendations in current international guidelines and published meta-analyses. More recently, multiple new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We aimed to provide an overview of all meta-analyses and their characteristics; to conduct a new and up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment; and to explore the additive value of new RCTs with a trial sequential analysis (TSA).METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to October 24, 2022. We identified existing meta-analyses covering all surgical specialties and RCTs studying the effect of iNPWT compared with standard dressings in all types of surgery on the incidence of SSI, wound dehiscence, reoperation, seroma, hematoma, mortality, readmission rate, skin blistering, skin necrosis, pain, and adverse effects of the intervention. We calculated relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We assessed publication bias with a comparison-adjusted funnel plot. TSA was used to assess the risk of random error. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) tool and GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312995.FINDINGS: We identified eight previously published general meta-analyses investigating iNPWT and compared their results to present meta-analysis. For the updated systematic review, 57 RCTs with 13,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis for SSI, yielding a RR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.76, I 2 = 21%) for iNPWT compared with standard dressing. Certainty of evidence was high. Compared with previous meta-analyses, the RR stabilised, and the confidence interval narrowed. In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, confirming the robustness of the summary effect estimate from the meta-analysis. INTERPRETATION: In this up-to-date meta-analysis, GRADE assessment shows high-certainty evidence that iNPWT is effective in reducing SSI, and uncertainty is less than in previous meta-analyses. TSA indicated that further trials are unlikely to change the effect estimate for the outcome SSI; therefore, if future research is to be conducted on iNPWT, it is crucial to consider what the findings will contribute to the existing robust evidence.FUNDING: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma). However, the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 5 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 08, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2013 Week 31); EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 8 August 2013).SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions such as dressings, steroids, or sham HOBT or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials involving 229 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, which precluded a meta-analysis.One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available). A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT. The fourth trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review were not reported. All four trials were at unclear or high risk of bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma, these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.
