RESUMO
Background In the realm of surgical and postoperative care, the application of wound dressings is a standard practice to facilitate healing, minimize infection risks, and offer a protective barrier against pathogens for optimal recovery. For instance, Theruptor is an active advanced wound care product with patented microbicidal technology. In the present study, we conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of Healthium Theruptor, 3M Tegaderm, and plain gauze dressings in patients undergoing abdominal and joint surgeries. Methodology This was a multicenter, prospective, three-arm, randomized, double-blind study conducted between April and November 2022 at three different sites in India, viz., All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur; Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry; and SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai. A total of 210 patients were randomized to receive either of the following three interventions: Theruptor, Tegaderm, and plain gauze dressing (n = 70 each) based on computer-generated randomization sequences using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Demographic data and surgery details were obtained and recorded at baseline. Parameters such as rate of wound healing, incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs), adverse events, product performance, and pain score were assessed and compared during the weekly follow-up visits until 28 days. In addition, wound assessments using the Stony Brook Scar evaluation scale, Cardiff Wound Impact Questionnaire, and Modified Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale were conducted to provide additional insights on the efficacy of the dressings (days 3, 7, 14, and 28). Lastly, the cost of wound management was assessed at the end of the study. The statistical analysis of the data was performed using a one-way analysis of variance followed by a Bonferroni post-hoc test on GraphPad software. Results All three dressings were equally effective in healing the wound and reducing the incidence of SSIs. The median healing time was estimated to be seven days. Further, no significant difference was observed in wound dehiscence, wound pain, clinical wound parameters, cosmetic assessment, and quality of life among the three groups (p > 0.05) during the follow-up visits. However, the product performance of Theruptor and Tegaderm was significantly better than plain gauze dressing in terms of ease of application (82.87% and 84.13% vs. 71.7%), ease of removal (83.09% and 83.67% vs. 70.79%), comfort to wear (82.59% and 84.47% vs. 72.83%), exudate management (84.35% and 85.7% vs. 77.23%), mean wear time in hours (65.57 and 65.92 vs. 49 hours), and mobility of the patient (p < 0.05). Further, the total cost of wound management with Theruptor dressing was significantly lower than with Tegaderm dressing (â¹1117.2 ± 269.86 vs. â¹1474 ± 455.63; p < 0.0001). Conclusions Although all three dressings were equally safe and clinically efficacious, Theruptor was more cost-effective with better product performance. Thus, Theruptor may be a considerate option in the postoperative wound management of abdominal and joint surgeries.
RESUMO
Background: Episiotomy procedure enlarges the vaginal outlet to facilitate childbirth. Polyglactin 910 fast-absorbing sutures are widely used for the repair of episiotomy because of their rapid absorption and less inflammatory response. This study was designed for subjective assessment of perineal pain post-episiotomy repair, with Trusynth Fast ® and Vicryl Rapide ® polyglactin 910 fast-absorbing sutures. Method: This was a single-blind, randomized, prospective study conducted between January 7, 2021 and July 14, 2021 across two centers in India. Primiparous or multiparous women (18-40 years), who required episiotomy during vaginal delivery were included, and either Trusynth Fast ® (n=47) or Vicryl Rapide ® (n=49) suture was used for their episiotomy repair. The primary endpoint, perineal pain was assessed with visual analogue scale at all follow-up visits. The secondary endpoints, quantity of local anesthesia, number of sutures used, time to repair episiotomy, intraoperative suture handling, analgesics used, early and late wound complications, wound re-suturing, time to complete healing, presence of residual sutures, return to sexual activity, dyspareunia, and adverse events were also recorded. Results: The study showed no significant difference in perineal pain between the two groups at any visit. A statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in total score of episiotomy healing scale on day 2 (0.13±0.34 versus 0.35±0.56) and swelling on day 2 (8.51 versusversus 28.57%) was noted between Trusynth Fast ® and Vicryl Rapide ® group. Non-significant difference was observed between the groups regarding anesthesia, number of sutures, time to repair episiotomy, intraoperative suture handling, analgesics, puerperal fever, wound infection, dehiscence, hematoma, urinary incontinence, re-suturing, time to complete healing, return to sexual activity and dyspareunia. Conclusion: Trusynth Fast ® suture is clinically equivalent to Vicryl Rapide ® suture and can be used for episiotomy repair with minimal risk of perineal pain and wound complications. Clinical Trials Registry of India Registration: CTRI/2020/12/029925; Registered on December 18, 2020.
