Literature DB >> 7863149

A cost-effectiveness study of leg ulcer treatment in primary care. Comparison of saline-gauze and hydrocolloid treatment in a prospective, randomized study.

P Ohlsson1, K Larsson, C Lindholm, M Möller.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The majority of leg ulcer patients in Sweden are managed by primary health care personnel. To compare, in a primary care setting, the healing results and the expenses of two commonly used wound dressings for leg ulcers.
DESIGN: Thirty patients with leg ulcers of venous or mixed venous/arterial aetiology were randomized to treatment with saline-soaked gauze or with the hydrocolloidal dressing [HCD: DuoDERM (ConvaTec, A Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton)]. All patients were bandaged with the same compression of low-stretch-type [Comprilan (Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg)].
SETTING: Vårdcentralen Marieberg, Primary Health Care Centre, Motala, Sweden. OUTCOME MEASURES: Healing/reduction of ulcer area, pain, costs for material, nursing time, kilometres driven were registered during a six-week period.
RESULTS: Two patients dropped out of the study, one in the gauze-group due to erysipelas, and one in the HCD-group for social reasons. A total of 1234 dressing changes were analysed. Costs for material were similar in the two groups. When the total care including nursing- and travelling time and kilometres driven were analysed, the mean cost for treatment with gauze dressings was 4126 Swedish Kronor (SEK), and with HCD, 1565 SEK. Seven patients in the HCD-group and two in the gauze-group healed during the study. The reduction of the ulcer area was 19% in the gauze-group and 51% in the HCD-group (p < 0.16).
CONCLUSION: The total care, analysed in an authentic clinical setting, must be considered when different wound-care methods are discussed. In this study the use of HCD showed lower costs than use of gauze-dressings. As regards healing there was a tendency to improved healing with HCD, but no significant difference. Patients in the HCD-group reported significantly less pain at dressing changes (p < 0.003) than patients in the gauze-group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7863149     DOI: 10.3109/02813439409029256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care        ISSN: 0281-3432            Impact factor:   2.581


  6 in total

Review 1.  Interactive wound dressings. A practical guide to their use in older patients.

Authors:  C Hansson
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 2.  The use of gauze: will it ever change?

Authors:  Vanessa J Jones
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Elise Cogo; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Paul A Khan; Geetha Sanmugalingham; Jesmin Antony; Jeffrey S Hoch; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 4.  The effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings versus other dressings in the healing of pressure ulcers in adults and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Franciele Soares Pott; Marineli Joaquim Meier; Janislei Giseli Dorociak Stocco; Karla Crozeta; Janyne Dayane Ribas
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2014 May-Jun

Review 5.  Topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers.

Authors:  Michelle Briggs; E Andrea Nelson; Marrissa Martyn-St James
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-11-14

Review 6.  Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers.

Authors:  Gill Norman; Maggie J Westby; Amber D Rithalia; Nikki Stubbs; Marta O Soares; Jo C Dumville
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-06-15
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.