Moist wound healing compared with standard care of treatment of primary closed vascular surgical wounds: A prospective randomized controlled study

Wound Repair and Regeneration

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 624-627

  Vogt, Katja C ^a   Uhlyarik, M ^a   Schroeder, Torben V ^a  

^a Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGICAL WOUND; VASCULAR SURGERY; WOUND COMPLICATION; WOUND DRESSING; WOUND HEALING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCLUSIVE DRESSINGS; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 34848917964     PISSN: 10671927     EISSN: 1524475X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00294.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Abuzakuk TM, Coward P, Shenava Y, Kumar VS, Skinner JA. The management of wound following primary lower limb arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised study comparing hydrofiber and central pad dressings. Int Wound J 2006 3 : 133 7.
2. Ravenscroft MJ, Harker J, Buch KA. A prospective, randomised, controlled trial comparing wound dressings used in hip and knee surgery: Aquacel and Tegaderm versus Cutiplast. Ann Roy Coll Surg Eng 2006 88 : 18 22.
3. Holm C, Petersen JS, Gronboek F, Gottrup F. Effects of occlusive and conventional gauze dressings on incisional healing after abdominal operations. Eur J Surg 1998 164 : 179 83.
4. Michie DD, Hugill JV. Influence of occlusive and impregnated gauze dressings on incisional healing: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Ann Plast Surg 1994 32 : 57 64.
5. Wynne R, Botti M, Stedman H, et al. Effect of three dressings on infection, healing comfort, and cost in patients with sternotomy wounds. Chest 2004 125 : 43 9.
6. Foster L, Moore P. The application of a cellulose-based fibre dressing in surgical wounds. J Wound Care 1997 6 : 469 73.
7. Moore PJ, Foster L. Cost benefit of two dressings in the management of surgical wounds. Br J Nurs 2000 11 : 1128 32.
8. Cohn SM, Lopez PP, Brown M, et al. Open surgical wounds: how does Aquacel compare with wet-to-dry gauze? J Wound Care 2004 13 : 10 12.
9. Pounds LL, Montes-Walters M, Mayhall CG, et al. A changing pattern of infection after major vascular reconstructions. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005 39 : 511 7.
10. Bowler PG, Jones SA, Davies BJ, Coyle E. Infection control properties of some wound dressings. J Wound Care 1999 8 : 499 502.
11. Tachi M, Hirabayashi S, Yonehara Y, Suzuki Y, Bowler P. Comparison of bacteria retaining ability of absorbent wound dressings. Int Wound J 2004 1 : 177 81.
12. Hutchinson JJ, Lawrence. Wound infection under occlusive dressings. J Hosp Infect 1991 17 : 83 94.