A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention

• Published in: Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) Vol. 5; no. 14; pp. 1 - 131
• Main Authors: Lewis, R, Whiting, P, ter Riet, G, O'Meara, S, Glanville, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England NIHR Journals Library 2001
• Subjects: Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Debridement - economics; Debridement - methods; Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Postoperative Complications - economics; Postoperative Complications - therapy; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Wound Healing
• ISSN: 1366-5278; 2046-4924; 1366-5278
• DOI: 10.3310/hta5140

Most surgically sutured wounds heal without any complication. However, in some cases wound healing can be delayed due to the presence of infection or wound breakdown. This can result in the wounds becoming cavity wounds and thus necessitate healing by secondary intention. Other surgical wounds that are not sutured but left to heal by secondary intention include abscess cavities such as perianal abscesses or breast abscesses. Surgical wounds healing by secondary intention are thought to heal more slowly than wounds healing by primary intention, especially if infection is present or healing is compromised by factors such as decreased blood supply, poor nutritional status or a general suppression of the immune response. Such wounds may contain dead tissue and have a moderate or high level of exudate. Debridement involves the removal of devitalised, necrotic tissue or fibrin from a wound. There are many different methods that can be used to debride a wound, which are broadly classified as surgical/sharp, biosurgical, mechanical, chemical, enzymatic and autolytic. Although it is generally agreed that the management of surgical wounds which contain devitalised tissue and are healing by secondary intention requires debridement, it is not always clear as to what is the best method or agent to use. There is currently a large selection of products with debriding properties available on the market, which vary considerably in cost. It is important that the choice of both debriding method and product is based on the best scientific evidence available, taking into account both cost and effectiveness data. The review had two main objectives: (1) To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. (2) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating patients with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention at specialised wound care clinics as compared to conventional care. The review incorporated all debriding methods and any agent that is considered to have a debriding property. METHODS The following databases were searched using strategies designed specifically for each database: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium), CCTR via the Cochrane Library, the National Research Register (NRR), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED). Additional references were identified through reviewing manufacturer and sponsor submissions made to NICE, the bibliographies of retrieved articles, and conferences proceedings on the Internet. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised controlled trials with concurrent controls and full economic evaluations were considered for inclusion. Only studies that evaluated some sort of debriding method or a specialised wound care clinic (a nurse with specialist training in wound care; care being provided by a multidisciplinary team; a fast-track referral system to other professions (e.g. dermatologist); or access to the latest health technology) were included in the review. Studies had to include participants with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (e.g. cavity wounds, the consequences of wound dehiscence and abscesses) and report an objective measure of wound healing. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and, when necessary, by recourse to a third reviewer. The primary outcomes of interest were wound healing and cost. Results of data extraction and quality assessment were presented in structured tables and also as a narrative summary. In addition, where feasible, the results of individual studies were presented as forest plots. Studies were grouped according to the type of wound, debriding method and outcome measure used. RESULTS - CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria, all of which used the autolytic method of debridement. No studies were found that investigated sharp/surgical, biosurgical, mechanical, chemical or enzymatic debridement in the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. No studies were found which investigated specialised wound care clinics that included the provision of care within a clinical setting (based in either primary or secondary care). The type of surgical wounds investigated by studies included in the review were those that had broken down postoperatively, perineal wounds resulting from proctolectomy or rectal excision, and those left open after pilonidal sinus excision or abscess incision, or wounds following a laparotomy. Four additional studies investigated treatment of postoperative wounds from toenail avulsions. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)