Многоцентровая клиническая оценка эффективности гидроактивных раневых повязок

Номер журнала: 
12
Год издания: 
2019

H. Hodgson(1), D. Davidson(2), A. Duncan(3), J. Guthrie(1), E. Henderson(5), M. Macdiarmid(3), K. McGown(3), V. Pollard(2), R. Potter(4), A. Rodgers(6), A. Wilson(7), J. Horner(1), M. Doran(1), S. Simm(8), R. Taylor(8), A. Rogers(9), M. Rippon(10), M. Colgrave(11) 1-Общество специалистов по обеспечению регенерации тканей (ОРТ), Глазго, Шотландия, Великобритания 2-Королевский госпиталь Инверклид, Гринок, Шотландия, Великобритания 3-Университетский госпиталь королевы Елизаветы, Глазго, Шотландия, Великобритания 4-Медсестры-специалисты по ОРТ (Общество специалистов по ОРТ), Глазго, Шотландия, Великобритания 5-Королевский лазарет Глазго, Шотландия, Великобритания 6-Королевская детская больница, Глазго, Шотландия, Великобритания 7-Королевский госпиталь Александры, Пейсли, Шотландия, Великобритания 8-Пауль Хартманн, Хейвуд, Ланкшир, Великобритания 9-Флинтшир, Северный Уэльс, Великобритания 10-Университет Хаддерсфилда, Квинсгейт, Хаддерсфилд, Великобритания 11-Специалист по молекулярным клеточным исследованиям, Линкольн, Великобритания E-mail: Heather.Hodgson@ggc.scot.nhs.uk

Оценивается эффективность гидроактивных раневых повязок при осуществлении дебридмента и подготовке некротически измененного раневого ложа острых и хронических ран.
Ключевые слова: 
раневые некрозы, HydroClean plus / ГидроКлин плюс, гидроактивная раневая повязка, струп

Список литературы: 
  1. Guest J., Ayoub N., McIlwraith T. et al. Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK // BMJ Open 2015; 5 (12):e009283. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009283.
  2. Swanson T., Grothier L., Schultz G. Wound infection made easy. Wounds International. URL: https://tinyurl.com/m7t4mrg (accessed 18 October 2017).
  3. Ousey K., Rogers A., Rippon M. HydroClean plus: a new perspective to wound cleansing and debridement // Wounds UK. – 2016; 12 (1): 94–104.
  4. Robson M., Steed D., Franz M. Wound healing: biologic features and approaches to maximize healing trajectories // Curr. Probl. Surg. – 2001; 38 (2): 72–140. https://doi.org/10.1067/msg.2001.111167.
  5. Schultz G., Sibbald R., Falanga V. et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management // Wound Repair Regen. – 2003; 11 (Suppl. 1): S1–S28. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.11.s2.1.x.
  6. Falanga V., Saap L., Ozonoff A. Wound bed score and its correlation withhealing of chronic wounds // Dermatol. Ther. – 2006; 19 (6): 383–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8019.2006.00096.x.
  7. Barrett S. Wound-bed preparation: a vital step in the healing process // Br. J. Nurs. – 2017; 26 (12): S24–S31. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2017.26.12.S24.
  8. Steed D. Debridement // Am. J. Surg. – 2004; 187 (5A): S71–S74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00307-6.
  9. Panuncialman J., Falanga V. The science of wound bed preparation // Surg. Clin. North Am. – 2009; 89 (3): 611–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2009.03.009.
  10. Sibbald R., Woo K., Ayello E. Increased bacterial burden and infection:the story of NERDS and STONES // Adv. Skin Wound Care. – 2006; 19 (8): 447–61.
  11. Snyder R., Bohn G., Hanft J. et al. Wound biofilm: current perspectives and strategies on biofilm disruption and treatments // Wounds. – 2017; 29 (6, Suppl.): S1–S17.
  12. Anderson I. Debridement methods in wound care // Nurs. Stand. – 2006; 20 (24): 65–70. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.02.20.24.65.c4077.
  13. Strohal R., Dissemond J., Jordan O’Brien J. et al. An updated overview andclarification of the principle role of debridement // J. Wound Care. – 2013; 22 (Suppl. 1): S1–S49. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2013.22.Sup1.S1.
  14. Nazarko L. Advances in wound debridement techniques // Br. J. Community Nurs. – 2015; Suppl Community Wound Care: S6–S8. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.Sup6.S6.
  15. Wilcox J., Carter M., Covington S. Frequency of debridements and timeto heal: a retrospective cohort study of 312744 wounds // JAMA Dermatol. – 2013; 149 (9): 1050–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.4960.
  16. Sibbald R., Williamson D., Orsted H. et al. Preparing the wound beddebridement,bacterial balance, and moisture balance // Ostomy Wound Manage. – 2000; 46 (11): 14–35.
  17. Gray D., Acton C., Chadwick P. et al. Consensus guidance for the use of debridement techniques in the UK // Wounds UK. – 2011; 7 (1): 77–84.
  18. Vowden K., Vowden P. Debridement made easy // Wounds UK. – 2011; 7 (4): 1–4.
  19. Atkin L., Rippon M. Autolysis: mechanisms of action in the removal of devitalised tissue // Br. J. Nurs. – 2016; 25 (20): S40–S47. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2016.25.20.S40.
  20. Konig M., Vanscheidt W., Augustin M. et al. Enzymatic versus autolyticdebridement of chronic leg ulcers: a prospective randomised trial // J. Wound Care. – 2005; 14 (7): 320–3. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2005.14.7.26813.
  21. Humbert P., Faivre B., Veran Y. et al. Protease-modulating polyacrylate-basedhydrogel stimulates wound bed preparation in venous leg ulcers a randomizedcontrolled trial // J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. – 2014; 28 (12): 1742–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12400.
  22. Spruce P., Bullough L., Johnson S. et al. Introducing HydroClean plus for wound-bed preparation: a case series // Wounds International. – 2016; 7 (1): 26–32.
  23. Grey J., Harding K., Enoch S. Pressure ulcers // BMJ. – 2006; 332 (7539): 472–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7539.472.
  24. Hansson C. The effects of cadexomer iodine paste in the treatment of venous leg ulcers compared with hydrocolloid dressing and paraffin gauze dressing. Cadexomer Iodine Study Group // Int. J. Dermatol. – 1998; 37 (5): 390–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00415.x.
  25. Wild T., Eberlein T., Andriessen A. Wound cleansing efficacy of two cellulose-based dressings // Wounds UK. – 2010; 6 (3): 14–21.
  26. Gethin G., Cowman S., Kolbach D. Debridement of venous leg ulcers // Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. – 2015; 9: CD008599. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008599.pub2.
  27. Skog E., Arnesjo B., Troeng T. et al. A randomised trial comparing cadexomer iodine and standard treatment in the out-patient management of chronic venous ulcers // Br. J. Dermatol. – 1983; 109 (1): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1983.tb03995.x
  28. Alvarez O., Philips T., Menzoian J. et al. An RCT to compare bio-cellulose wound dressing with a non-adherent dressing in VLUs // J. Wound Care. – 2012; 21 (9): 448–53. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2012.21.9.448.
  29. Frykberg R., Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds // Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). – 2015; 4 (9): 560–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0635.
  30. Hopkins A., Dealey C., Bale S. et al. Patient stories of living with a pressureulcer // J. Adv. Nurs. – 2006; 56 (4): 345–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04007.x.
  31. Spilsbury K., Nelson A., Cullum N. et al. Pressure ulcers and their treatmentand effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives // J. Adv. Nurs. – 2007; 57 (5): 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04140.x
  32. Stephen-Haynes J., Bielby A., Searle R. Putting patients first: reducing the human and economic costs of wounds // Wounds UK. – 2011; 7 (3): 47–55.
  33. Persoon A., Heinen M., van der Vleuten C. et al. Leg ulcers: a review of their impact on daily life // J. Clin. Nurs. – 2004; 13 (3): 341–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00859.x.
  34. Groenewald J. An evaluation of dextranomer as a cleansing agent in the treatment of the post-phlebitic stasis ulcer // S. Afr. Med. J. – 1980; 57 (20): 809–15.
  35. Ousey K., Rogers A., Rippon M. Hydro-Responsive Wound Dressings simplify T.I.M.E. wound management framework // Br. J. Community Nurs. – 2016a; 21 (Suppl. 12): S39–S49. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2016.21.Sup12.S39.
  36. Falanga V. The chronic wound: impaired healing and solutions in the context of wound bed preparation // Blood Cells Mol. Dis. – 2004; 32 (1): 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcmd.2003.09.020.
  37. Scotton M., Miot H., Abbade L. Factors that influence healing of chronic venous leg ulcers: a retrospective cohort // An. Bras. Dermatol. – 2014; 89 (3): 414–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142687.
  38. Brothers K., Stella N., Hunt K. et al. Putting on the brakes: bacterial impediment of wound healing // Sci. Rep. – 2015; 5: 14003. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14003.
  39. Leaper D., Schultz G., Carville K. et al. Extending the TIME concept: What have we learned in the past 10 years? // Int. Wound J. – 2012; 9 (1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01097.x.
  40. Ramundo J., Gray M. Enzymatic wound debridement // J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. – 2008; 35 (3): 273–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.WON.0000319125.21854.78.
  41. Olin J., Beusterien K., Childs M. et al. Medical costs of treating venousstasis ulcers: evidence from a retrospective cohort study // Vasc. Med. – 1999; 4 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358836X9900400101.
  42. Kerstein M., Gemmen E., van Rijswijk L. et al. Cost and cost effectivenessof venous and pressure ulcer protocols of care // Dis. Manage Health Outcomes. – 2001; 9 (11): 651–63. https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200109110-00005.
  43. Crowe S., Cresswell K., Robertson A. et al. The case study approach // BMC Med. Res. Methodol. – 2011; 11 (100). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-10