Choosing the Optimal Wound Dressing for Bathing After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Healthium Theruptor Versus 3M Tegaderm Versus Plain Gauze Dressing for Wound Dressings Used in Abdominal and Joint Surgeries: A Prospective, Multicentric, Randomized Study

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 (₹1117.2 ± 269.86 vs. ₹1474 ± 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.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Wound Dressings Used in Obstetric and Gynecological Surgeries: Trushield NXT vs. Tegaderm

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) is considered as a healthcare-associated infection. Wound dressings play an imperative role in altering the risk of SSI. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of Trushield NXT Non-adherent dressing (Healthium Medtech Limited, Bangalore, India) to the traditional Tegaderm HP+ Pad Film Dressing with Non-Adherent Pad (3M, Bangalore, India) in post-operative wound management of obstetrics and gynecological surgeries. Methodology This was a single-centre, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, randomized, single-blind study conducted between January 2022 and May 2022. One hundred two subjects were enrolled and randomized to receive Trushield or Tegaderm dressing (n=51 each). The incidence of SSI, adverse events (AEs), comfort and performance of the dressings, subject satisfaction, and pain score were assessed in both groups. Results The baseline demographics and clinical and physical data were comparable among the groups. During the follow-up study, no SSI or AEs were reported. On the product usage assessment scale, surgeons rated both dressings "good" to "excellent" and favored Trushield for comfortable usage and removal, while Tegaderm was favored for ease of application and flexibility. On the wound pain assessment scale, the proportion of patients reporting "no pain" after surgery was 5.9% in the Trushield group and 4.2% in the Tegaderm group, which increased to 87.8% and 88.6%, respectively, at the end of the follow-up. The subject satisfaction for the comfort and wound healing properties was similar for both products. Conclusion Both dressings were equally safe, efficient, and beneficial in the post-operative wound management of obstetric and gynecological surgeries.

In Vitro and In Vivo Characterization Methods for Evaluation of Modern Wound Dressings

Chronic wound management represents a major challenge in the healthcare sector owing to its delayed wound-healing process progression and huge financial burden. In this regard, wound dressings provide an appropriate platform for facilitating wound healing for several decades. However, adherent traditional wound dressings do not provide effective wound healing for highly exudating chronic wounds and need the development of newer and innovative wound dressings to facilitate accelerated wound healing. In addition, these dressings need frequent changing, resulting in more pain and discomfort. In order to overcome these issues, a wide range of affordable and innovative modern wound dressings have been developed and explored recently to accelerate and improve the wound healing process. However, a comprehensive understanding of various in vitro and in vivo characterization methods being utilized for the evaluation of different modern wound dressings is lacking. In this context, an overview of modern dressings and their complete in vitro and in vivo characterization methods for wound healing assessment is provided in this review. Herein, various emerging modern wound dressings with advantages and challenges have also been reviewed. Furthermore, different in vitro wound healing assays and in vivo wound models being utilized for the evaluation of wound healing progression and wound healing rate using wound dressings are discussed in detail. Finally, a summary of modern wound dressings with challenges and the future outlook is highlighted.

Dressing Management during Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dressings for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) typically focus on promoting optimal healing, while preventing infection, allowing for functionality and immediate ambulation, while providing for excellent cosmesis. We have previously described four aspects of closure after TKA involving the: (1) deep fascial layer; (2) subdermal layer; (3) intradermal layer, including the subcuticular region; and (4) a specific aseptic dressing. In this meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature, we will focus on the dressing. Specifically, we assessed: (1) infection risk of different techniques; (2) re-operation or readmission risk; and (3) length of time until dressing change needed. There were 16 reports on infection risk, re-operation risk, and length of time until change needed. A meta-analysis focused on the qualifying wound complication risk reports was also performed. The meta-analysis including four studies (732 patients) demonstrated overall lower wound complication risk with the use of adhesives and mesh dressings (odds ratio 0.67) versus traditional closures. Additionally, studies demonstrated fewer re-operations and readmissions with the use of adhesives and mesh dressings. Furthermore, one report demonstrated mesh dressings persist longer than silver dressings. Therefore, multiple recent reports suggest superior outcomes when using adhesive and mesh dressings for TKAs.

Silver as an Antibiotic-Independent Antimicrobial: Review of Current Formulations and Clinical Relevance

Background: The increase of multi-drug-resistant organisms has revived the use of silver as an alternative antibiotic-independent antimicrobial. Although silver's multimodal mechanism of action provides low risk for bacterial resistance, high local and uncontrolled concentrations have shown toxicity. This has resulted in efforts to develop novel silver formulations that are safer and more predictable in their application. Optimization of silver as an antimicrobial is crucial given the growing resistance profile against antibiotics. This article reviews formulations of silver used as antimicrobials, focusing on the mechanisms of action, potential for toxicity, and clinical applications. Methods: A search of four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for relevant studies up to January 2022. Searches were conducted for the following types of silver: ionic, nanoparticles, colloidal, silver nitrate, silver sulfadiazine, silver oxide, silver carboxylate, and AQUACEL^® (ConvaTec, Berkshire, UK). Sources were compiled based on title and abstract and screened for inclusion based on relevance and study design. Results: A review of the antimicrobial activity and uses of ionic silver, silver nanoparticles, colloidal silver, silver nitrate, silver sulfadiazine, silver oxide, Aquacel, and silver carboxylate was conducted. The mechanisms of action, clinical uses, and potential for toxicity were studied, and general trends between earlier and more advanced formulations noted. Conclusions: Early forms of silver have more limited utility because of their uncontrolled release of silver ions and potential for systemic toxicity. Multiple new formulations show promise; however, there is a need for more prospective in vivo studies to validate the clinical potential of these formulations.

Innovative Treatment Strategies to Accelerate Wound Healing: Trajectory and Recent Advancements

Wound healing is highly specialized dynamic multiple phase process for the repair of damaged/injured tissues through an intricate mechanism. Any failure in the normal wound healing process results in abnormal scar formation, and chronic state which is more susceptible to infections. Chronic wounds affect patients’ quality of life along with increased morbidity and mortality and are huge financial burden to healthcare systems worldwide, and thus requires specialized biomedical intensive treatment for its management. The clinical assessment and management of chronic wounds remains challenging despite the development of various therapeutic regimens owing to its painstakingly long-term treatment requirement and complex wound healing mechanism. Various conventional approaches such as cell therapy, gene therapy, growth factor delivery, wound dressings, and skin grafts etc., are being utilized for promoting wound healing in different types of wounds. However, all these abovementioned therapies are not satisfactory for all wound types, therefore, there is an urgent demand for the development of competitive therapies. Therefore, there is a pertinent requirement to develop newer and innovative treatment modalities for multipart therapeutic regimens for chronic wounds. Recent developments in advanced wound care technology includes nanotherapeutics, stem cells therapy, bioengineered skin grafts, and 3D bioprinting-based strategies for improving therapeutic outcomes with a focus on skin regeneration with minimal side effects. The main objective of this review is to provide an updated overview of progress in therapeutic options in chronic wounds healing and management over the years using next generation innovative approaches. Herein, we have discussed the skin function and anatomy, wounds and wound healing processes, followed by conventional treatment modalities for wound healing and skin regeneration. Furthermore, various emerging and innovative strategies for promoting quality wound healing such as nanotherapeutics, stem cells therapy, 3D bioprinted skin, extracellular matrix-based approaches, platelet-rich plasma-based approaches, and cold plasma treatment therapy have been discussed with their benefits and shortcomings. Finally, challenges of these innovative strategies are reviewed with a note on future prospects.

Modern Wound Dressings: Hydrogel Dressings

Chronic wounds do not progress through the wound healing process in a timely manner and are considered a burden for healthcare system; they are also the most common reason for decrease in patient quality of life. Traditional wound dressings e.g., bandages and gauzes, although highly absorbent and effective for dry to mild, exudating wounds, require regular application, which therefore can cause pain upon dressing change. In addition, they have poor adhesional properties and cannot provide enough drainage for the wound. In this regard, the normalization of the healing process in chronic wounds is an extremely urgent task of public health and requires the creation and implementation of affordable dressings for patients with chronic wounds. Modern wound dressings (WDs) are aimed to solve these issues. At the same time, hydrogels, unlike other types of modern WDs (foam, films, hydrocolloids), have positive degradation properties that makes them the perfect choice in applications where a targeted delivery of bioactive substances to the wound is required. This mini review is focused on different types of traditional and modern WDs with an emphasis on hydrogels. Advantages and disadvantages of traditional and modern WDs as well as their applicability to different chronic wounds are elucidated. Furthermore, an effectiveness comparison between hydrogel WDs and the some of the frequently used biotechnologies in the field of regenerative medicine (adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs), mesenchymal stem cells, conditioned media, platelet-rich plasma (PRP)) is provided.