Literature DB >> 19554226

Sterile versus nonsterile clean dressings.

Moraya Alqahtani1, Donald H Lalonde.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many patients cannot afford sterile dressings. In St John, New Brunswick, clean dressings have been used instead of sterile dressings for years, with no apparent ill effects. No previous studies have compared the sterility and cost of clean versus sterile dressing materials.
OBJECTIVES: THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT STUDY WERE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: how much more sterile are sterile dressings than clean dressings; and how much does this extra sterility cost?
METHODS: Sterility and cost of sterile gauze, panty liners, sanitary napkins, diapers and Coban tape (3M, USA) were compared. Samples, 2 cm x 2 cm in size, were cut out of each material under aseptic conditions, and delivered to the microbiology laboratory in sterile urine containers. The samples were then cultured and organisms were identified using conventional means.
RESULTS: The cost for one month, using one 20 cm x 5 cm wound dressing daily, was calculated and compared with panty liners ($2.43), sanitary napkins ($5.55), diapers ($9.39) and Coban tape ($0.66), which were much cheaper than sterile dressings ($16.50). How sterile were the dressings? None of the 20 sanitary napkins grew bacteria, one of the 20 panty liners grew bacteria (coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), two of 20 sterile dressings grew bacteria (one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and one nonhemolytic Streptococcus), 15 of 20 diapers grew bacteria (all bacillus) and two of five Coban rolls grew bacteria (one bacillus and one coagulase-negative Staphylococcus).
CONCLUSION: The panty liners, sanitary napkins and Coban tape studied were cheaper than, and had a comparible sterility with, the sterile gauze examined.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clean dressing; Dressing cost; Sterile dressing; Wound

Year:  2006        PMID: 19554226      PMCID: PMC2539027          DOI: 10.1177/229255030601400110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Plast Surg        ISSN: 1195-2199


  5 in total

1.  'Clean' vs. 'sterile'.

Authors:  A M Karch; F E Karch
Journal:  Am J Nurs       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.220

Review 2.  Clean technique or sterile technique? Let's take a moment to think.

Authors:  Laura A Barber
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.741

3.  Does sterile or nonsterile technique make a difference in wounds healing by secondary intention?

Authors:  Carol Lawson; Lynn Juliano; Catherine R Ratliff
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.629

4.  Sterile versus clean technique in postoperative wound care of patients with open surgical wounds: a pilot study.

Authors:  N A Stotts; S Barbour; K Griggs; B Bouvier; L Buhlman; D Wipke-Tevis; D F Williams
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 1.741

5.  Sterile versus nonsterile gloves for repair of uncomplicated lacerations in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Vsevolod S Perelman; Gregory J Francis; Tim Rutledge; John Foote; Frank Martino; George Dranitsaris
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.721

  5 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Secondary healing of fingertip amputations: a review.

Authors:  Emily M Krauss; Donald H Lalonde
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2014-09

2.  Microbial contamination of open-but-unused portions of wound dressings stored in home settings.

Authors:  Sue Templeton; Ching Wong; Tabatha Rando; Penny Adamson; Penny Lynn
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Simple Effective Ways to Care for Skin Wounds and Incisions.

Authors:  Don Lalonde; Nadim Joukhadar; Jeff Janis
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-10-29
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.