We have located links that may give you full text access.
Polyester mesh dressings reduce delayed wound healing rates after total hip arthroplasty compared with silver-impregnated occlusive dressings.
Arthroplasty Today 2020 June
Background: New dressings purport to reduce surgical wound complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study compared delayed wound healing rates and reoperations between 2 increasingly popular dressings: a silver-impregnated occlusive (standard) dressing and a 2-octyl cyanoacrylate adhesive with polyester mesh.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study reviewed 431 consecutive THAs performed by 2 surgeons between January 2017 and May 2019. One hundred and eight were excluded for not using standard or mesh dressings. A final 323 cases were separated into 2 cohorts: mesh (n = 186) and standard dressings (n = 137). Standard dressings were removed at 1 week. Mesh persisted until nonadherent, approximately 3-4 weeks. The surgeon assessed delayed wound healing at the 2-week postoperative visit. Secondary outcomes include deep infection and return to the operating room for a wound-related diagnosis. Differences were determined using the chi-square test.
Results: There were no demographic, comorbidity, or surgical differences between groups. There were 22 total cases of delayed wound healing with 7 (3.8%) in the mesh group and 15 (10.9%) in the standard dressing group ( P = .01). There were no significant differences in reoperations (2 [1.1%] vs 2 [1.5%], P = .76) or deep infections (2 [1.1%] vs 1 [0.7%], P = .75).
Conclusions: Mesh dressings are a safe and reliable dressing type for THA and were associated with a decrease in early wound healing complications when compared with standard, silver-impregnated occlusive dressings in this retrospective series. The mesh tension sharing properties and longer duration of occlusive protection may explain this difference.
Level of Evidence: Level III.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study reviewed 431 consecutive THAs performed by 2 surgeons between January 2017 and May 2019. One hundred and eight were excluded for not using standard or mesh dressings. A final 323 cases were separated into 2 cohorts: mesh (n = 186) and standard dressings (n = 137). Standard dressings were removed at 1 week. Mesh persisted until nonadherent, approximately 3-4 weeks. The surgeon assessed delayed wound healing at the 2-week postoperative visit. Secondary outcomes include deep infection and return to the operating room for a wound-related diagnosis. Differences were determined using the chi-square test.
Results: There were no demographic, comorbidity, or surgical differences between groups. There were 22 total cases of delayed wound healing with 7 (3.8%) in the mesh group and 15 (10.9%) in the standard dressing group ( P = .01). There were no significant differences in reoperations (2 [1.1%] vs 2 [1.5%], P = .76) or deep infections (2 [1.1%] vs 1 [0.7%], P = .75).
Conclusions: Mesh dressings are a safe and reliable dressing type for THA and were associated with a decrease in early wound healing complications when compared with standard, silver-impregnated occlusive dressings in this retrospective series. The mesh tension sharing properties and longer duration of occlusive protection may explain this difference.
Level of Evidence: Level III.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app