Literature DB >> 8109680

Dressings and wound infection.

J C Lawrence1.   

Abstract

Wounds will readily acquire bacteria, unless protective measures are taken. The bacterial protection afforded by conventional absorbent cellulose dressings has been shown to be limited, particularly in the presence of serous exudate that may compromise dressing integrity. In addition, dressings may shed particles that remain in the wound. By contrast, many modern dressings are impermeable to bacteria, are removed completely, have been found to optimize reepithelialization rates and reduce the incidence of wound sepsis. Recently, it has been found that they could also play a role in preventing cross-contamination. Removing conventional cellulosic dressings from bacterially colonized wounds liberates wound bacteria into the air, and the numbers are slow to decline. However, using an in vitro wound model, use of the hydrocolloid dressing Granuflex (ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ) on experimentally colonized wounds resulted in significantly fewer numbers of airborne bacteria. Dispersal from wet conventional dressings was lower than from dry dressings; nevertheless, the numbers of bacteria per liter of air following removal of the hydrocolloid dressing were approximately 20% of those observed for gauze. These findings have also been confirmed in the clinic. To reduce the incidence of complications, wound care in general, and infection control procedures in particular, requires carefully disciplined team work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8109680     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(94)90006-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  12 in total

Review 1.  Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management.

Authors:  P G Bowler; B I Duerden; D G Armstrong
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 2.  Wet-to-Dry Dressings Do Not Provide Moist Wound Healing.

Authors:  Aaron J Wodash
Journal:  J Am Coll Clin Wound Spec       Date:  2013-09-22

Review 3.  The use of gauze: will it ever change?

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

4.  Comparison of the effects of selected dressings on the healing of standardized abrasions.

Authors:  E E Claus; C F Fusco; T Ingram; C D Ingersoll; J E Edwards; T J Melham
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Why "wet to dry"?

Authors:  Cynthia A Fleck
Journal:  J Am Col Certif Wound Spec       Date:  2009-10-06

6.  [Microbial stress of skin and wounds in clinical aspects and practice. Between search and destroy and monitor and relax].

Authors:  G Daeschlein; S Lutze; M Jünger
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 0.751

7.  Wound care management: proper protocol differs from athletic trainers' perceptions.

Authors:  M S Goldenberg
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Randomised clinical trial of Hydrofiber dressing with silver versus povidone-iodine gauze in the management of open surgical and traumatic wounds.

Authors:  Florent Jurczak; Thierry Dugré; Alison Johnstone; Theodor Offori; Zorica Vujovic; Dirk Hollander
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.315

9.  Comparison of Hydrogel Produced by Radiation as Applied at the Research Center (Yazd Branch) With MaxGel and Routine Dressing for Second-Degree Burn Repair in Yazd Burn Hospital.

Authors:  Mohammad Taghi Noorbala; Mohammad Noorbala; Mohammad Hossein Dashti-Rahmatabadi; Mahdi Noorbala; Roghaye Noorbala; Behare Mozaffary
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 0.611

Review 10.  Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy: Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Luis G Fernandez; Marc R Matthews; Pablo Sibaja Alvarez; Scott Norwood; David H Villarreal
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.