ObjectiveTo observe the effect of silver dressings on treating diabetic foot ulcer infection. MethodsA total of 105 patients with diabetic foot ulcers treated from May 2012 to April 2014 were randomly divided into two groups:group A and B. Patients in group A were treated with imported silver ion alginate dressing, while group B was treated with domestic nanometer silver dressing. All patients were given basic treatment, and the effect of silver dressing was evaluated by observing bacterial clearance rate and wound healing score. ResultsThere were significant improvement in bacterial clearance rate and wound healing score in both two groups after treatment. The bacterial clearance rate was similar between the two groups (P>0.05). However, the descending trend of wound healing score in group A was significantly more obvious than group B (P<0.01). ConclusionBoth two silver dressings are effective in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer infection, but the effectiveness of silver ion alginate dressing is superior. Bacterial clearance rate and wound healing score are objective and applicable index to evaluate the treatment effects of silver dressing.
ObjectiveTo research on the types of pathogenic bacteria in wound infection and analyze the effectiveness of long-term use of nano-silver dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers, in order to provide references for the management of pressure ulcer wound. MethodsFifty-five patients (60 wounds) with stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ pressure ulcer wound treated in all departments between September 2011 and August 2015 were chosen to be our study subjects. Under overall intervention, all the wounds were assessed by the same method, cleansed and debrided, after which nano-silver antimicrobial dressing was used to intervene until the wound healed or the end of 8 weeks. The wounds which were not healed were treated with wet dressing therapy until wound healing. The detection rate of pathogenic bacteria before intervention and 2, 4 and 8 weeks after intervention, change of pressure ulcer healing score and the rate of wound healing were observed. ResultsBefore the intervention, 12 kinds of pathogenic bacteria were detected, including mainly Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and coagulase negative Staphylococci. The detection rate of pathogenic bacteria was 92.73% (51/55). With the use of nano-silver dressing during different time periods, the detection rate of pathogenic bacteria and the total score of pressure ulcer were lowered by varying degrees (P<0.01). Four and 8 weeks after intervention, wound bed improved significantly and the detection rate of pathogenic bacteria decreased faster. The healing rate during the intervention period was 23.64% (13/55). ConclusionThe incidence of pressure ulcer wound infection is high. The use of nano-silver wound dressing can effectively remove pathogenic bacteria and promote wound healing.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of chlorhexidine versus povidone iodine in the prevention of wound infections after surgeries by meta-analysis. Methods All randomized controlled trials comparing these two disinfectants were searched from databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), EMbase, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI from inception to August 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the chlorhexidine group had significantly lower rates in any surgical site infection (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88,P=0.001) and superficial incisional infection (RR=0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91,P=0.01) when compared with povidone iodine group. However, there were no significant differences in deep incisional infection (RR=0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.11,P=0.09) and organ-space infection (RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76,P=0.92) between the two groups. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed differences in any surgical site infection and superficial incisional infection could only be found in surgeries possibly contaminated. Conclusion Chlorhexidine may be superior in decreasing the incidence of infection in probably contaminated surgery.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the mainstay of treatment for advanced hip arthritis, but a number of postoperative wound complications may occur, such as wound dehiscence, bleeding and infection. Among them, wound infection is one of the serious complications after THA, which may lead to hip dysfunction or even disability, prolong hospital stay, increase readmission rate and significantly increase related medical expenses. Therefore, further understanding and action to change modifiable risk factors associated with wound infection will not only reduce medical expenses, but also improve the prevention, treatment and care. This article reviews the risk factors of surgical wound infection over the past 5 years, including patients factors (serum albumin, serum transferrin, blood transfusion, congestive heart failure, diabetes, overweight or obesity, smoking, and long-term use of hormone) and medical factors (previous surgery, surgical approach, length of surgery, and operating room environment).
Wound infection can prolong wound healing time, increase hospitalization cycle and readmission rate, seriously affect patients’ quality of life and increase economic expenditure. Timely and accurate identification and management of wound infections is key to promoting wound healing and maximizing cost-effective management. In 2022, the International Wound Infection Association published the third edition of Wound Infection in Clinical Practice: Principles of Best Practice. The consensus incorporates new advances in research and clinical practice in the areas of wound environment, risk factors for infection, biofilms, antibiotic resistance, and the identification and management of wound infections, and provides detailed approaches to infection assessment and management. This article introduces the key elements of the 2022 expert consensus and interprets the updated content to help healthcare professionals, patients, caregivers, and policy makers understand the latest consensus document, promote its clinical application in the prevention and treatment of wound infection, and better improve the quality of clinical practice.