Trial reportInternational wound journal2014
Suction assisted pulse lavage: randomised controlled studies comparing its efficacy with conventional dressings in healing of chronic wounds.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective Study from a Single Center on the Efficacy of Pulsed Lavage Following Excision of Burns ≥30% of the Total Body Surface Area in 63 Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
- Managing Refractory Postoperative Fistulas as Chronic Wounds Using Video-Assisted Hydrodebridement (VAHD).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Comparison of Lavage Techniques for Preventing Incision Infection Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic, open, non-healing wounds pose a continual challenge in medicine as the treatment is variable and there are no documented consistent responses. Although wound aetiologies vary and there are a number of factors that affect chronic wound pathogenesis, wound ischaemia and bacterial colonisation of wounds are the chief concerns among them. Conventionally, pulse lavage has been used primarily as a wound debriding device. To address both the critical factors of wound ischaemia and bacterial burden, a couple of technical points were proposed and applied in this study. The objective of our study was to evaluate pulse lavage therapy's ability to improve the healing rate of chronic wounds compared to that of the traditional saline-wet-to-moist dressings. The study period was from 1 August 2010 to 31 January 2012 and was conducted in our institution. Thirty patients with 31 chronic, non-healing wounds were enrolled in the study after obtaining proper consent. Subjects were randomised (15 patients each) to the pulse lavage group and the control group. Patients in the test group were subjected to irrigation of their wounds with pulsed lavage at 10 to 15 psi pressure. In the control group, wound was closed by applying moist betadine saline gauze dressings after cleaning with saline. Wounds treated with pulse lavage system significantly reduced in size, had better control of bacterial contamination and had overall faster healing rates. Efficacy of pulse lavage can be increased by correct method of administration of the irrigant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.