Acute wound management: revisiting the approach to assessment, irrigation, and closure considerations

Abstract Background As millions of emergency department (ED) visits each year include wound care, emergency care providers must remain experts in acute wound management. The variety of acute wounds presenting to the ED challenge the physician to select the most appropriate management to facilitate healing. A complete wound history along with anatomic and specific medical considerations for each patient provides the basis of decision making for wound management. It is essential to apply an evidence‐based approach and consider each wound individually in order to create the optimal conditions for wound healing. Aims A comprehensive evidence‐based approach to acute wound management is an essential skill set for any emergency physician or acute care practitioner. This review provides an overview of current evidence and addresses frequent pitfalls. Methods A systematic review of the literature for acute wound management was performed. Results A structured MEDLINE search was performed regarding acute wound management including established wound care guidelines. The data obtained provided the framework for evidence‐based recommendations and current best practices for wound care. Conclusion Acute wound management varies based on the wound location and characteristics. No single approach can be applied to all wounds; however, a systematic approach to acute wound care integrated with current best practices provides the framework for exceptional wound management

A multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of small stitches on the incidence of incisional hernia in midline incisions

Contains fulltext : 95575.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The median laparotomy is frequently used by abdominal surgeons to gain rapid and wide access to the abdominal cavity with minimal damage to nerves, vascular structures and muscles of the abdominal wall. However, incisional hernia remains the most common complication after median laparotomy, with reported incidences varying between 2-20%. Recent clinical and experimental data showed a continuous suture technique with many small tissue bites in the aponeurosis only, is possibly more effective in the prevention of incisional hernia when compared to the common used large bite technique or mass closure. METHODS/DESIGN: The STITCH trial is a double-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to compare a standardized large bite technique with a standardized small bites technique. The main objective is to compare both suture techniques for incidence of incisional hernia after one year. Secondary outcomes will include postoperative complications, direct costs, indirect costs and quality of life. A total of 576 patients will be randomized between a standardized small bites or large bites technique. At least 10 departments of general surgery and two departments of oncological gynaecology will participate in this trial. Both techniques have a standardized amount of stitches per cm wound length and suture length wound length ratio's are calculated in each patient. Follow up will be at 1 month for wound infection and 1 year for incisional hernia. Ultrasound examinations will be performed at both time points to measure the distance between the rectus muscles (at 3 points) and to objectify presence or absence of incisional hernia. Patients, investigators and radiologists will be blinded during follow up, although the surgeon can not be blinded during the surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: The STITCH trial will provide level 1b evidence to support the preference for either a continuous suture technique with many small tissue bites in the aponeurosis only or for the commonly used large bites technique