OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of occlusive (Comfeel) and conventional (Mepore) dressings on the healing of incisional wounds after abdominal operations. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study. SETTING: Laboratory and teaching hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS:73 patients who underwent clean operations requiring incisions longer than 5 cm between August 1993 and August 1995 were randomised to have their wounds dressed with either Comfeel or Mepore. INTERVENTIONS: Comfeel was left on until the sutures were removed, and Mepore was removed 2 days postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infection, adherence, leakage, and cosmetic appearance three months later. RESULTS:36 patients were randomised to have Comfeel and 37 to have Mepore. 29 patients were withdrawn from the study (20 having Mepore and 9 having Comfeel) leaving 26, and 17 for analysis, respectively. Wound infections developed in 1 patient in the Comfeel group and 5 in the Mepores group (p = 0.2). There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed, the incidence of leakage, or loosening of the dressing from the skin. Comfeel adhered securely to the skin and remained more or less transparent until sutures were removed. It remained totally transparent in 23 (64%), and no dressing became totally opaque. There were no differences in cosmetic appearance after three months. We had the impression that patients who had Comfeel were more comfortable and found it easier to mobilise and carry out their daily activities. CONCLUSION: Occlusive dressings stay in place and stay transparent, and do not increase the risk of wound infection. They may even be more comfortable. they are a reasonable alternative to conventional dressings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of occlusive (Comfeel) and conventional (Mepore) dressings on the healing of incisional wounds after abdominal operations. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study. SETTING: Laboratory and teaching hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: 73 patients who underwent clean operations requiring incisions longer than 5 cm between August 1993 and August 1995 were randomised to have their wounds dressed with either Comfeel or Mepore. INTERVENTIONS: Comfeel was left on until the sutures were removed, and Mepore was removed 2 days postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infection, adherence, leakage, and cosmetic appearance three months later. RESULTS: 36 patients were randomised to have Comfeel and 37 to have Mepore. 29 patients were withdrawn from the study (20 having Mepore and 9 having Comfeel) leaving 26, and 17 for analysis, respectively. Wound infections developed in 1 patient in the Comfeel group and 5 in the Mepores group (p = 0.2). There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed, the incidence of leakage, or loosening of the dressing from the skin. Comfeel adhered securely to the skin and remained more or less transparent until sutures were removed. It remained totally transparent in 23 (64%), and no dressing became totally opaque. There were no differences in cosmetic appearance after three months. We had the impression that patients who had Comfeel were more comfortable and found it easier to mobilise and carry out their daily activities. CONCLUSION: Occlusive dressings stay in place and stay transparent, and do not increase the risk of wound infection. They may even be more comfortable. they are a reasonable alternative to conventional dressings.
Authors: Jo C Dumville; Trish A Gray; Catherine J Walter; Catherine A Sharp; Tamara Page; Rhiannon Macefield; Natalie Blencowe; Thomas Kg Milne; Barnaby C Reeves; Jane Blazeby Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-12-20