Advertisement

Surgery Today

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 848–854 | Cite as

A new hydrocolloid dressing prevents surgical site infection of median sternotomy wounds

  • Hideki Teshima
  • Hiroshi Kawano
  • Hideyuki Kashikie
  • Katsuhiko Nakamura
  • Tatsuya Imada
  • Takeshi Oda
  • Shigeaki Aoyagi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This prospective and semi-randomized study was conducted to clarify the effectiveness of a new hydrocolloid dressing placed over median sternotomy wounds using an occlusive dressing technique.

Methods

The subjects were 253 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), who were randomized to receive either the new hydrocolloid dressing (Karayahesive, n = 117) or a polyurethane foam dressing (Tegaderm plus Pad, n = 136) immediately after sternal wound closure. Karayahesive was left in place for 7 days, whereas the Tegaderm plus Pad was removed on postoperative day (POD) 2 and replaced with an adhesive wound dressing until POD 7.

Results

In the Karayahesive group, complete integrity of the wound was achieved in 91% of the patients, with an infection developing in 3.4%: as a superficial surgical site infection (SSI) in three and as a deep SSI in one. On the other hand, in the Tegaderm plus Pad group, an infection developed in 10.3% (14 patients) of the patients: as a superficial SSI in nine and as a deep SSI in five (P < 0.05). The total treatment costs from the application of the dressing until completion of treatment was 699 yen for the Karayahesive and 910 yen for the Tegaderm plus Pad (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The new hydrocolloid dressing, applied with an occlusive dressing technique to median sternotomy wounds, prevented SSI and was cost effective.

Key words

Wound Surgical site infection Hydrocolloid dressing Occlusive dressing technique Coronary artery bypass graft 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Avato JL, Lai KK. Impact of postdischarge surveillance on surgical-site infection rates for coronary artery bypass procedures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:364–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Segers P, de Jong AP, Spanjaard L, Ubbink DT, de Mol BAJM. Randomized clinical trial comparing two options for postoperative incisional care to prevent poststernotomy surgical site infections. Wound Repair Regen 2007;15(2):192–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russo PL, Spelman DW. A new surgical-site infection risk index using risk factors identified by multivariate analysis for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:372–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harrington G, Russo P, Spelman D, Borrell S, Watson K, Barr W, et al. Surgical-site infection rates and risk factor analysis in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(6):472–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zeitani J, Bertoldo F, Bassano C, Penta de Peppo A, Pellegrino A, El Fakhri FM, et al. Superficial wound dehiscence after median sternotomy: surgical treatment versus secondary wound healing. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:672–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Momin AU, Deshpande R, Potts J, El-Gamel A, Marrinan MT, Omigie J, et al. Incidence of sternal infection in diabetic patients undergoing bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80(5):1765–1772; discussion 1772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Paulis R, de Notaris S, Scaffa R, Nardella S, Zeitani J, Del Giudice C, et al. The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery harvesting on superficial and deep sternal infection: The role of skeletonization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129(3):536–543.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savage EB, Grab JD, O’Brien SM, Ali A, Okum EJ, Perez-Tamayo RA, et al. Use of both internal thoracic arteries in diabetic patients increases deep sternal wound infection. Ann Thorac Surg 2 2007;83(3):1002–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swenne CL, Lindholm C, Borowiec J, Carlsson M. Surgical-site infections within 60 days of coronary artery by-pass graft surgery. J Hosp Infect 2004;57(1):14–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoshida J, Shinohara M, Ishikawa M, Matsuo K. Surgical site infection in general and thoracic surgery: Surveillance of 2663 cases in a Japanese teaching hospital. Surg Today 2006;36:114–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20(4):250–278; quiz 279–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hermans MHE, Skillman NJ. Clinical benefit of a hydrocolloid dressing in closed surgical wounds. J ET Nurs 1993;20:68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michle DD, Hugill JV. Influence of occlusive and impregnated gauze dressing on incisional healing: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. Ann Plastic Surg 1994;33:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wynne R, Botti M, Stedman H, Holsworth L, Harinos M, Flavell O, et al. Effect of three wound dressings on infection, healing comfort, and cost in patients with sternotomy wounds. Chest 2004;125:43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogawa M, Tsukui H, Ishii H, Yokoyama S, Koh E. Clinical evaluation of hydrocolloidal dressing in 147 patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery (in Japanese with English abstract). Kyobu Geka 2005;58(7):555–558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasaki K, Takasaka H, Yoshikawa T, Kawasaki H, Kiriyama K, Inafuku Y, et al. Clinical benefit of a hydrocolloid dressing and semi-closed drainage in the management of gastrointestinal surgical wounds (in Japanese). J Jpn Coll Surg 2004;29:209–213.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teshima H, Ishimaru T, Kawano H, Kashikie H, Nakamura K. Experience of using Karayahesive in the field of cardiovascular surgery. ALmedia Practice 2006;Dec:15–16.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tazawa K, Anazawa S. Pharmacological actions of skin barriers. Skin barriers for stoma care. From basic theory to clinical application. Tokyo: ALCARE; 2001. p. 56–68, 150–76.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tazawa K, Fujimaki M. The basic principle of skin management of stoma: The role of dressing (in Japanese). J Jpn Stoma Conf 1988;4:25–31.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenfeldt FL, Negri J, Holdaway D, Davis BB, Mack J, Grigg MJ, et al. Occlusive wrap dressing reduces infection rate in saphenous vein harvest site. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:101–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alvarez JM. Use of an occlusive dressing for 2 weeks reduces the incidence of sternal wound infections. Aust NZ J Surg 2005;75(3):179–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nilsson J, Algotsson L, Hoglund P, Luhrs C, Brandt J. Early mortality in coronary bypass surgery: the EuroSCORE versus The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk algorithm. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77(4):1235–1239; discussion 1239–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zerr KJ, Furnary AP, Grunkemeier GL, Bookin S, Kanhere V, Starr A. Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63(2):356–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winter GD. Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelization of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. Nature 1962;193:293–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoekstra MJ, Hermans MH, Richters CD, Dutrieux RP. A histological comparison of acute inflammatory responses with a hydrofibre or tulle gauze dressing. J Wound Care 2002;11:113–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maki DG, Ringer M. Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters. JAMA 1987;258:2396–2403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gillies D, O’Riordan E, Carr D, O’Brie I, Frost J, Gunning R. C Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 20 2003;44(6):623–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lait ME, Smith LN. Wound management: a literature review. J Clin Nurs 1998;7:11–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Emori TG, Gaynes RP. An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbiology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993;6:428–442.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rapp-Kesek D, Ståhle E, Karlsson TT. Body mass index and albumin in the preoperative evaluation of cardiac surgery patients. Clin Nutr 2004;23(6):1398–4404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideki Teshima
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Kawano
    • 1
  • Hideyuki Kashikie
    • 1
  • Katsuhiko Nakamura
    • 1
  • Tatsuya Imada
    • 1
  • Takeshi Oda
    • 2
  • Shigeaki Aoyagi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryOmura Municipal Hospital, Cardiovascular CenterNagasakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryKurume University School of MedicineKurume, FukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations