This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 8, Issue 12, December-2017 1933 ISSN 2229-5518
Abdominal 1·3–4·7% Wounds West prevalence data (2007–2011) Caesarean section 3% De Vivo et al. [12] Sternal wound 3% John [14] Hip prosthesis 3% Smith et al. [10] Saphenous vein graft 9·3% (10/108 patients) Biancari and Tiozzo [13]
• Assesment
Clinicians ought to complete a holistic patient assessment to recognize elements that could
influence surgical injury healing in the pre-, intra- and post-operative stages. It is necessary to
keep in mind that reassessment should take place during the whole post-operative phase. The pre-
operative stage is an essential time, offering the possibility to create an atmosphere that prevents
surgical wound difficulties. Surgical injuries ought to be evaluated and the findings recorded
utilizing a standardized strategy.4 Assessment utilizing a comprehensive wound analysis tool
gives a standard and helps with the recognition of wound changes. This details helps with
determining either wound healing or degeneration and must guide recurring treatment choices.
Assessment of the individual with a surgical wound starts quickly post-op, nevertheless most
surgical incisions are not generally analyzed up until 48 hours after surgery since, in most cases,
the original post-operative dressing remains in place for the initial 48 to 72 hours [15].
In addition to the wound analysis devices recommended in Wounds Canada's "Best Practice
Recommendations for the Prevention and Management of Wounds" 12 article, Pillen et al.
recognize 3 added tools for evaluation of surgical and general wounds: [16]
- The Barber Measurement Tool (BMT) makes use of the percent reduction in wound size in time
as a sign of healing but was not supported by information [17] .
wound. It is very important that there is arrangement within each health-care organization about
what is and what is not classified as an open surgical injury.
In OASIS-C product M1342, "Status of Most Problematic (Observable) Surgical Wound," there are 4 possible choices, each with additional description (see Table 1): [23]
1. Newly epithelialized
2. Completely granulating
3. Early/partial granulation
4. Not recovery (may or may keep in mind be connected with infection).
For wounds healing by primary closure with well-approximated incisions, the close proximity of
the incisional edges leaves no locations for granulation to occur. For that reason, just the "newly
epithelialized" and "not healing" selections use. For wounds healing by secondary objective, all
four options would apply [21].This support relates to surgical wounds closed by either primary
intent (especially, approximated incisions) or secondary objective (specifically, open surgical
wounds).
Table 2: Surgical Wound Descriptions [23].
Newly epithelialized: • wound bed completely covered with new epithelium • no exudate • no avascular tissue (eschar and/or slough) • no signs or symptoms of infection
Fully granulating: • wound bed filled with granulation tissue to the level of the surrounding skin • no dead space • no avascular tissue (eschar and/or slough) • no signs or symptoms of infection • wound edges open
Early/partial granulation: • ≥ 25% of wound bed covered with granulation tissue • < 25% of wound bed covered with avascular tissue (eschar and/or slough) • no signs or symptoms of infection • wound edges open
• wound with ≥ 25% avascular tissue (eschar and/or slough), OR • signs/symptoms of infection, OR • clean but non-granulating wound bed, OR • closed/hyperkeratotic wound edges, OR • persistent failure to improve despite appropriate comprehensive wound management
• Optimize the local wound environment through Cleansing
Wound cleansing at its best ought to eliminate foreign bodies such as organic or inorganic debris,
inflammatory pollutants such as devitalized tissue, bacteria and injury exudate without causing
trauma to healthy cells or introducing bacteria deeper into the wound [24].
Care of a post-operative injury recovery by primary intention must utilize a nontouch aseptic
method making use of sterile saline approximately 48 hours after surgical treatment. Showering
is permitted 48 hrs after surgery in most cases; however, the decision depends on the
participating in surgeon and will be tempered by factors such as drains, hardware and skin grafts.
Efforts to cleanse a primary incision in beginning could disrupt the pathogenic microorganisms
along the suture line [25].Many surgical incisions do not require cleansing, [26] however
cleansing might add to patient comfort and remove any products that may postpone the healing
procedure [27].
Cleansing of surgical injuries that dehisce, are to heal by secondary objective or have an
increased bacterial load require clinical analysis and consideration of the kind of cleaning agent
and technique to be used. Each of the choices could have clinical advantages as well as
preventative measures. The NICE guidelines suggest that faucet water be utilized for injury care
after 48 hrs if the incision has separated or has been surgically opened to help with the water
drainage of pus. The Joanna Briggs Institute cautions that faucet water for post-operative wounds
should not be utilized if it has been stated non-potable [28].If used, the faucet must be run for 15
3. Ridderstolpe L, Gill H, Granfeldt H, Ahlfeldt H, Rutberg H. Superficial and deep sternal wound complications: incidence, risk factors and mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001;20:1168–75.
4. Urban JA. Cost analysis of surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2006;7(Suppl 1):S19–22.
5. Mangram AJ, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:247–78.
6. de Lissovoy G, Fraemean K, Hutchins V, Murphy D, Song D, Vaughn BB. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 2008;37:387–97.
7. Weiland DE, Bay RC, Del Sordi S. Choosing the best abdominal closure by meta-analysis. Am J Surg 1998;176:666–70.
8. Mosby Inc., Mosbys Medical Dictionary, 8th edn. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 2009. 9. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-
associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. 2013.
10. Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S. Sutures versus staples for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta-analysis. BMJ 2010;340:c1199.
11. Hadar E, Melamed N, Tzadikevitch-Geffen K, Yogev Y. Timing and risk factors of maternal complications of cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;283:735–41.
12. De Vivo A, Mancuso A, Giacobbe A, Priolo AM, De Dominici R, Savasta LM. Wound length and corticosteroid administration as risk factors for surgical-site complications following cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol 2010;89:355–9.
13. Biancari F, Tiozzo V. Staples versus sutures for closing leg wounds after vein graft harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:CD008057.
14. John LCH. Modified closure technique for reducing sternal dehiscence; a clinical and in vitro assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;33:769–73.
15. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Surgical Site Infection: Evidence Update June 2013. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg74/evidence/ evidence-update-241969645.
16. Pillen H, Miller M, Thomas J, Puckridge P, Sandison S, Spark JI. Assessment of wound healing: Validity, reliability and sensitivity of available instruments. Wound Practice and Research. 2009;17(4):208–217.
17. Barber S. A clinically relevant wound assessment method to monitor healing progression. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2008;54(3):42–49.2.
18. The Medical Algorithms Company. The ASEPSIS Scoring Method for Postoperative Wound Infections. Available from: www.medicalalgorithms.com/the-asepsis-scoring-method-forpostoperative-wound-infections.
19. Cohen M, Giladi M, Mayo A, Shafir R. The granulometer – A pocket scale for the assessment of wound healing. Ann Plast Surg. 1998;40(6):641–5.
20. Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN). Guidance on OASIS Skin and Wound. Available from: www.wocn.org/?page=oasis.
21. Trexler RA. Assessment of surgical wounds in the home health Patient: Definitions and Accuracy with OASIS-C. Home Healthcare Nurse. 2011;29(9):550–559.
22. Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN). Guidance on OASIS-C1 Integumentary Items: Best Practice for Clinicians. 2014. Available from: http://c.ymcdn. com/sites/www.wocn.org/resource/resmgr/Publications/WOCN_Guidance_on_ OASIS-C1_In.pdf.
23. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. OASIS-C Guidance Manual. 2011. Available from: www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/ homehealthqualityinits/downloads/hhqioasis-c-guidancemanualerrata.pdf.
24. Harris C. Local Wound Cleansing Updated. 2012. Available from: www. southwesthealthline.cas/healthlibrary_docs/E.2.1LocalWoundCareCleansing_ Mar22_2012.
25. Thomlinson D. To clean or not to clean? Nursing Times. 1987;83(9):71–75. 26. Birchall L, Taylor S. Surgical wound benchmark tool and PPGs. British Journal of
Nursing. 2003;12(17):1013–1023. 27. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, William RJ. Jarvis WR, for Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1999;20(4):247–278. Available from: www. cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/ssi_1999.pdf.
28. Joanna Briggs Institute. Solutions, techniques and pressure in wound cleansing. Best Practice. 2006;10(2):1–4. Available from: http://connect.jbiconnectplus.org/viewsourcefile. aspx?0=4341.
29. Gabriel A, Schraga ED. Wound Irrigation. Medscape Drugs & Diseases. 2015. Available from: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1895071-overview.
30. Orsted HL, Keast DH, Forest-Lalande L, Kuhnke JL, O’Sullivan-Drombolis D, Jin S, et al. Best practice recommendations for the prevention and management of wounds. In: Foundations of Best Practice for Skin and Wound Management. A supplement of Wound Care Canada; 2017.
31. Beldon P. About skin grafts and donor site wounds: Technical guide. Wounds International. 2007;2:149–155. Available from: www.woundsinternational.com/media/issues/231/files/ content_196.pdf.
32. Eskes AM, Brolmann FE, Gervens LAA, Ubbink DT, Herveulen H. Which dressing do donor site wounds need?: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:229.