↓ Skip to main content

Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early versus delayed dressing removal after primary closure of clean and clean-contaminated surgical wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010259.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clare D Toon, Charnelle Lusuku, Rajarajan Ramamoorthy, Brian R Davidson, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy

Abstract

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the deeper tissues or organs. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure (primary closure). The surgeon covers the closed surgical wound with either a dressing or adhesive tape. The dressing can act as a physical barrier to protect the wound until the continuity of the skin is restored (within about 48 hours) and to absorb exudate from the wound, keeping it dry and clean, and preventing bacterial contamination from the external environment. Some studies have found that the moist environment created by some dressings accelerates wound healing, although others believe that the moist environment can be a disadvantage, as excessive exudate can cause maceration (softening and deterioration) of the wound and the surrounding healthy tissue. The utility of dressing surgical wounds beyond 48 hours of surgery is, therefore, controversial. To evaluate the benefits and risks of removing a dressing covering a closed surgical incision site within 48 hours permanently (early dressing removal) or beyond 48 hours of surgery permanently with interim dressing changes allowed (delayed dressing removal), on surgical site infection. In March 2015 we searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further potentially-relevant trials. Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted with people of any age and sex, undergoing a surgical procedure, who had their wound closed and a dressing applied. We included only trials that compared early versus delayed dressing removal. We excluded trials that included people with contaminated or dirty wounds. We also excluded quasi-randomised studies, and other study designs. Two review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics of the trial participants, risk of bias in the trials and outcomes for each trial. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We used RevMan 5 software to perform these calculations. Four trials were identified for inclusion in this review. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Three trials provided information for this review. Overall, this review included 280 people undergoing planned surgery. Participants were randomised to early dressing removal (removal of the wound dressing within the 48 hours following surgery) (n = 140) or delayed dressing removal (continued dressing of the wound beyond 48 hours) (n = 140) in the three trials. There were no statistically significant differences between the early dressing removal group and delayed dressing removal group in the proportion of people who developed superficial surgical site infection within 30 days (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.28), superficial wound dehiscence within 30 days (RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.16) or serious adverse events within 30 days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.51). No deep wound infection or deep wound dehiscence occurred in any of the participants in the trials that reported this outcome. None of the trials reported quality of life. The hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -2.82 to -1.18) and the total cost of treatment significantly less (MD EUR -36.00; 95% CI -59.81 to -12.19) in the early dressing removal group than in the delayed dressing removal group in the only trial that reported these outcomes. The early removal of dressings from clean or clean contaminated surgical wounds appears to have no detrimental effect on outcomes. However, it should be noted that the point estimate supporting this statement is based on very low quality evidence from three small randomised controlled trials, and the confidence intervals around this estimate were wide. Early dressing removal may result in a significantly shorter hospital stay, and significantly reduced costs, than covering the surgical wound with wound dressings beyond the first 48 hours after surgery, according to very low quality evidence from one small randomised controlled trial. Further randomised controlled trials of low risk of bias are necessary to investigate whether dressings are necessary after 48 hours in different types of surgery and levels of contamination and investigate whether antibiotic therapy influences the outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Postgraduate 25 15%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Master 22 13%
Other 19 11%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 33 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,813,854
of 16,489,850 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,549
of 11,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,466
of 256,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#171
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,489,850 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.