ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the effect of wound protector on preventing incisional wound infection following class Ⅲ-Ⅳincision abdominal operation.Methods Patients who had undergone class Ⅲ-Ⅳincision abdominal opera-tion from January 2013 to December 2014 were divided into trial group and control group according to whether they had used wound protector ,incidence of postoperative incisional wound infection between two groups were com-pared.Results A total of 310 patients were monitored,150 cases in trial group,and 160 cases in control group. Incidence of incisional wound infection in trial group was significantly lower than control group (4.00% [n=6]vs 11 .88%[n=19],χ2 =6.48,P <0.05).The average operation time and length of hospital stay in trial group were both shorter than control group ([42.10±3.30]min vs [58.30±4.10]min,P <0.05;[7.00±2.20]d vs [10.00 ±3.50]d ,P <0.05),score of pain assessment of incision in trial group was lower than control group([2.00 ± 1 .70]vs [3.00±1 .80],P <0.05).Conclusion Wound protector can effectively reduce the incidence of incisional wound infection following class Ⅲ-Ⅳincision abdominal operation.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Surgical wound complications remain a cause of morbidity and mortality among postoperative patients, and the cost of caring for patients with a surgical wound complication is substantial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of a vinyl wound protector to reduce the rate of wound complications when used in clean-contaminated surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and September 2006, 295 patients with a gastric cancer that underwent gastric surgery were studied prospectively, and the patients were randomized into one of two groups: the no wound protector group (n=137) or the polyethylene protector group (n=132). RESULTS: The demographics and operation type and operation time were similar for patients in both groups. The rate of wound complication was different between patients in the no protector group (n=42) and the polyethylene protector group (n=12) (P=0.001) and the rates of seroma (P=0.001), infection (P=0.030) and dehiscence (P=0.282) were different for the two groups. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the polyethylene protector group of patients (P=0.040). CONCLUSION: The use of a polyethylene protector resulted in a reduction of the surgical wound complication rate, and the cost of caring for patients, and morbidity and mortality among postoperative patients could be reduced.