ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oncology wounds and wounds of other etiology are rare but serious complications, which significantly impair patients quality of life. Preventive and curative interventions and education of healthcare personnel and patients reduce the risk of either their occurrence or their impact and consequences. A working group of authors from professional groups (the Supportive Care Group of the Czech Society for Oncology, the Czech Society for Wound Healing, the Society for Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, and the Czech Nurses Association) prepared recommendations for care. A comprehensive approach to the treatment of oncological wounds, including symptomatic treatment of associated healing complications, prevention, early detection, interdisciplinary cooperation and education are essential to deal with wounds related to chemotherapy administration, radiotherapy and oncological treatment in general. The proper choice of local care products and the eventuality of active oncological treatment are important elements of care in ulcerating tumors. PURPOSE: A basic summary of recommended interventions to prevent and treat oncology wounds in daily practice, defined based on expert societies guidelines, trials and literature data, proven practice and on the consensus opinions of the authors group members. The recommended procedures contribute to the reduction of the development, severity and consequences of oncological wounds and wounds of other etiology in oncological patients.
Subject(s)
Medical Oncology , Quality of Life , Humans , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
Surgical site infections are relatively common complications observed in patients during postoperative period. SSIs worsen the outcomes of the surgery, impair patients quality of life, increase morbidity and mortality after the surgery, the treatment become longer and more expensive. SSIs form around 18% of healthcare-associated infections. In developed countries the incidence of SSI varies from 2 to 15%. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect the incidence of SSI. CDC classification from 1992 differentiate 3 types of SSI: superficial, deep and organ/space infections. Controversial results of already published studies focused on the postoperative management of surgical wounds did not provide a space for strong clinical evidence-based guidelines. Early diagnostics of wound-healing complications related to high-risk patients provides for individualized surgery and postoperative management of the incision.
Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Surgical Wound Infection , Humans , Incidence , Risk Factors , Surgical Wound Infection/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Infection/therapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an effective local treatment method of many non-healing wounds. NPWT is routinely used for inpatient treatment in the Czech Republic; however, no clinical data is available for systematic outpatient treatment. METHODS: The prospective non-randomized study was used to compare the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of diabetic leg-ulcer and foot-ulcer negative pressure treatment in outpatient and inpatient settings. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of outpatient NPWT on the basis of wound bed evaluation, to detect and quantify pre-expected reductions in the total costs of the therapy, and to compare the efficacy of both treatment options. Enrolled subjects included inpatients (n=36, NPWT systems RENASYS GO or PICO) and outpatients (n=28, PICO system). NPWT was concluded when the wound bed had been totally covered by granulation tissue, or when serious health problems occurred. We monitored the ulcer area, wound bed trait, number of NPWT dressing changes, length of NPWT, intensity of pain (VAS scale), presence of complications, and treatment costs. RESULTS: We found comparable clinical efficacy of outpatient (n=28)/inpatient (n=36; statistically non-significant differences in healing of ulcers verified based on wound bed development and reduction of ulcer areas in time) NPWT, the same risk of complications associated with NPWT (statistically non-significant differences in the function of both technologies and in complications developed during follow-up) as well as similar long-term results (statistically non-significant differences in the count of amputations). The total costs for outpatient wound treatment were statistically significantly lower (EUR 600 versus EUR 1300, p=0.001), and so were the average one-day-NPWT costs (EUR 30 versus EUR 120, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that outpatient diabetic-foot-ulcer NPWT provided the same clinical efficiency as inpatient NPWT, while outpatient NPWT was less expensive, less painful and better tolerated than inpatient NPWT.
