BACKGROUND:Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for long- term artificial enteral feeding. Standardized wound management such as daily dressing changes and local disinfection of the exit site helps to keep complication rates low. New bacteriostatic glycogel wound dressing has not yet been tested. We compared glycogel dressing to the usual method of wound aftercare with regard to wound infections. METHODS: The standard wound management was compared to glycogel dressing. 100 consecutive patients were investigated in a prospective randomized trial from Aug. 2004 to Jan. 2006 regarding wound infections. We also compared indications for PEG placement, complications other than wound infection, and mortality. The exit site was examined and scored daily using a specific wound scoring system. After 30 days, the patients were followed up by phone calls to determine if any infection had occurred after discharge. RESULTS: During our study, 98 out of 100 patients had a successful PEG procedure performed. Out of these 98 patients, 48 patients receivedstandard wound dressing care and 50 patients used glycogel dressing. The indications for PEG placement were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 88% of patients (n = 42) with standard wound care had no relevant infection (50%, n = 24 with score 0 or 1; 38%, n = 18 had score 2), 10% (n = 5) presented with serious local infection (score 3) and one patient (2%) had severe infection necessitating PEG removal (score 4). In the group using glycogel dressing, 88% of the patients (n = 44) did not show any relevant sign of infection (54%, n = 27 with score 0 or 1; 34%, n = 17 had score 2), 8% (n = 4) had serious local infection (score 3), 2% (n = 1) had severe infection (score 4) and 2% (n = 1) were lost to follow up. CONCLUSION: Regarding wound infection rates after PEG placement, glycogel wound dressing was found to be as effective as standard wound dressing. Thus, omitting daily changes of regular wound dressings by using glycogel dressing instead may be advantageous for patients and generally help to decrease overall cost.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for long- term artificial enteral feeding. Standardized wound management such as daily dressing changes and local disinfection of the exit site helps to keep complication rates low. New bacteriostatic glycogel wound dressing has not yet been tested. We compared glycogel dressing to the usual method of wound aftercare with regard to wound infections. METHODS: The standard wound management was compared to glycogel dressing. 100 consecutive patients were investigated in a prospective randomized trial from Aug. 2004 to Jan. 2006 regarding wound infections. We also compared indications for PEG placement, complications other than wound infection, and mortality. The exit site was examined and scored daily using a specific wound scoring system. After 30 days, the patients were followed up by phone calls to determine if any infection had occurred after discharge. RESULTS: During our study, 98 out of 100 patients had a successful PEG procedure performed. Out of these 98 patients, 48 patients received standard wound dressing care and 50 patients used glycogel dressing. The indications for PEG placement were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 88% of patients (n = 42) with standard wound care had no relevant infection (50%, n = 24 with score 0 or 1; 38%, n = 18 had score 2), 10% (n = 5) presented with serious local infection (score 3) and one patient (2%) had severe infection necessitating PEG removal (score 4). In the group using glycogel dressing, 88% of the patients (n = 44) did not show any relevant sign of infection (54%, n = 27 with score 0 or 1; 34%, n = 17 had score 2), 8% (n = 4) had serious local infection (score 3), 2% (n = 1) had severe infection (score 4) and 2% (n = 1) were lost to follow up. CONCLUSION: Regarding wound infection rates after PEG placement, glycogel wound dressing was found to be as effective as standard wound dressing. Thus, omitting daily changes of regular wound dressings by using glycogel dressing instead may be advantageous for patients and generally help to decrease overall cost.
Authors: Chr Löser; G Aschl; X Hébuterne; E M H Mathus-Vliegen; M Muscaritoli; Y Niv; H Rollins; P Singer; R H Skelly Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Gerhard Aschl; Andreas Kirchgatterer; Stephan Allinger; Max Hinterreiter; Dietmar Hubner; Wolfgang Kranewitter; Bernhard Stadler; Ludwig Wimmer; Peter Knoflach Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2003-02-28 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: N K Jain; D E Larson; K W Schroeder; D D Burton; K P Cannon; R L Thompson; E P DiMagno Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1987-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nerukav V Radhakrishnan; Achuth H Shenoy; Ivor Cartmill; Ravi K Sharma; Regi George; David N Foster; Laura Quest Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Faisal A Alhaffaf; Awad S Alqahtani; Abdulrahman A Alrobyan; Sarah N Alqubaisi; Bashar A Ahmad; Mohammad R Almutairi; Sami A Wali; Hamoud A Alhebbi Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.484