1 / 106

WOUND CARE AND REPAIR

WOUND CARE AND REPAIR. FARAS ABUZEYAD, MD. Epidemiology:. In USA > 10,000,000 annual ER visits Average cost of $200 per patient Hollander et al: Wound Registry: Development and Validation. Ann Emerg Med, May 1995. Causes of traumatic wounds:. Distribution of traumatic wounds:.

Audrey
Download Presentation

WOUND CARE AND REPAIR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WOUND CARE AND REPAIR FARAS ABUZEYAD, MD.

  2. Epidemiology: • In USA > 10,000,000 annual ER visits • Average cost of $200 per patient • Hollander et al: Wound Registry: Development and Validation. Ann Emerg Med, May 1995.

  3. Causes of traumatic wounds:

  4. Distribution of traumatic wounds:

  5. Malpractice: • Karcz: Malpractice claims against emergency physicians in Massachusetts; 1975-1993. Am J Emerg Med 1996. wounds claims 19.85%, and 3.15% total expenses ($1,235,597) • American College of Emergency Physicians. Foresight Issue 49, September 2000: Laceration mismanagement & failure to diagnose a retained foreign body is the 2nd most common malpractice claims against emergency physician

  6. What patients want? • Adam:Patient Priorities With Traumatic Lacerations.Am J Emerg Med, October 2000.

  7. History: Mechanism Time FB Medical conditions Allergies Tetanus status Exam: Size Location Contaminants Neurovascular Tendons Evaluation:

  8. Universal Precautions: • CDC published guidelines on use of universal precautions. • Use of protective barriers: eg. Gloves/ gowns/ masks/ eyewear Will decrease exposure to infective material.

  9. Gloves: • Use latex free gloves • Since March 1999, FDA reported: 2,330 latex allergic reactions including 21 deaths

  10. Bodiwala: Surgical gloves during wound repair in the accident and emergency department. Lancet 1982. • randomized 337 patients to ‘gloves’ or ‘careful hand-washing, no gloves’: INFECTION GLOVES NO GLOVES • None 167 (82.7%) 170 (82.5%) • ‘Mild’ 27 (13.4%) 27 (13.1%) • ‘Severe’ 8 (4.0%) 9 (4.4%)

  11. Caliendo: Surgical masks during laceration repair. J Am Coll Emerg Phys 1976. Alternated face mask / no mask for 99 wound repairs: • Mask: 1 / 47 infected • No mask: 0 / 42 infected

  12. 1-  Esters: Cocaine Procaine (Novocain) Benzocaine (Cetacaine) Tetracaine (Pontocaine) Chloroprocaine (Nesacaine) 2-Amides: Lidocaine (Xylocaine) Mepivacaine (Polocaine, Carbocaine) Bupivacaine (Marcaine) Etidocaine (Duranest) Prilocaine Local Anesthesia:2 main groups

  13. Properties of commonly used local anesthetics:

  14. Why Lidocaine? • Less painful • Rapid onset • Less cardiotoxic • Less expensive

  15. Morris:Comparison of pain associated with intradermal and subcutaneous infiltration with various local anesthetic solutions. Anesth Analg 1987. • 24 volunteers • each injected with 5 anesthetic agents and NS • visual analog pain scale • Etidocaine> Bupivacaine> Mepivacaine> NS> Chloroprocaine> Lidocaine (least painful)

  16. Methods to reduce pain of Lidocaine local infiltration: • 1-Small-bore needles • 2-Buffered solutions • 3-Warmed solutions • 4-Slow rates of injection • 5-Injection through wound edges • 6-Subcutaneous rather than intradermal injection • 7- Pretreatment with topical anesthetics

  17. 1-Small-bore needles: Edlich, 1988: • 30-gauge hurts less than a 27-gauge • 27-gauge hurts less than a 25-gauge, etc.

  18. 2-Buffered solutions: • with sodium bicarbonate at a ratio of 1:10 • change in the pH of the anesthetic solution does not increase wound infection rates • No compromise to anesthesia effect

  19. Studies on buffered lidocaine:

  20. 3-Warmed solutions:

  21. Warming and Buffering have synergistic effect: Mader, 1994 and Bartfield, 1995:Effect of warming and buffering on pain of Lidocaine infiltration. • Warming and Buffering have synergistic effect in reducing pain • Temp. used 40 and 38.9 °C vs room temp.

  22. 4-Slow rates of injection:

  23. 5-Injection through wound edges:

  24. 6-Subcutaneous rather than intradermal injection:

  25. 7- Pretreatment with topical anesthetics:

  26. 8- Digital / Regional nerve block: • A critical skill for all ED physicians • Save time • Decrease possibility of systemic toxicity • Less painful than local infiltration • Do not cause the volume-related tissue distortion

  27. Topical Anesthetic instead of local: TAC: • Tetracaine – 25 cc of 2% solution • Adrenalin – 50 cc of a 1:1000 solution • Cocaine – 11.8 gm Pryor, 1980 andHegenbarth, 1990: • topical TAC vs lidocaine infiltration, in laceration repair • No significant difference in anesthetic efficacy

  28. TAC: Down sides are: • Not reliable when used below the head • Tissue toxic, Case reports of death and seizures • Corneal damage • Intense vasoconstriction avoid in digits, nose, pinna and penis • Must be mixed by hospital pharmacist • Not approved by FDA • Expensive – up to $35 / dose

  29. LAT, LET, or XAP: • Lidocaine – 15cc of 2% viscous • Adrenaline – 7.5cc of 1:1000 topical • Tetracaine – 7.5cc of 2% topical • Ernst-1995, Blackburn-1995, Ernst-1997: showed effective anesthesia if left in place for 15 to 20 minutes • Schilling-1995 and Amy-1995: As efficacious as TAC • $5 / dose • Much less potential for significant toxicity

  30. Lidocaine with Epinepkrine: • In animal models, there is theoretic concern for increased risk of wound infection • Tissue ischemia and necrosis if injected in digits

  31. Skin and Wound preparation: • 1- Hair removal • 2- Disinfecting the skin • 3- Debridement • 4-Wound Cleansing and Irrigation • 5-Soaking

  32. 1- Hair removal:To shave or not to shave! Seropian, 1971: • 406 clean surgical wounds • If shaved pre-op, 3.1% infection rate • If depilated, 0.6% infection rate Howell, 1988: • 68 scalp lacerations repaired without hair removal (93% within 3 hours of injury), no infection at 5-day follow-up

  33. 2- Disinfecting the skin: • An ‘ideal agent’ does not exist – either tissue toxic or poorly bacteriostatic • Simple scrub water around wound should be sufficient • No studies have demonstrated the impact of cleaning intact skin on infection rate, however it is important to decrease bacterial load to minimize ongoing wound contamination. • Avoid mechanical scrubbing unless heavily contaminated (increase inflammation in animal data)

  34. 3- Debridement: • Devitalized soft tissue acts as a culture medium promoting bacterial growth • Inhibits leukocyte phagocytosis of bacteria and subsequent kill • Anaerobic environment within the devitalized tissue may also limit leukocyte function

  35. Dhingra V: Periphral Dissemination of Bacteria in Contaminated Wounds: Role of Devitalized tissue: Evaluation of Therapeutic Measures. Surgery, 1976. • Animal study, devitalized wounds contaminated with 3 Bacteria, treated with NS jet irrigation or debridement at 2, 4, 6 hr • Debridement more effective in reducing bacteria count and infection rate

  36. 4-Wound Cleansing and Irrigation: • Decreasing wound contamination and hence infection, "the solution to pollution is dilution." • Indications • Methods • Pressure • Solution • Volume • Side effects

  37. 1- Indications: • Any contaminated or bite wounds • Animal and human studies demonstrate irrigation lowers infection rates in contaminated wounds Hollander JE et al: Irrigation in facial and scalp lacerations: Does it alter outcome? Ann Emerg Med 1998.   • 1,923 patients 1,090 patients received saline irrigation, and 833 patients did not • Nonbite, noncontaminated facial skin or scalp lacerations who presented less than 6 hours • No difference in wound infection rate or cosmetic appearance

  38. 2- Methods: • Bulb syringe • IV bag +/- pressure cuff • Syringe and needle • Jet lavage

  39. 3- Pressure: • lack of clinical studies • recommend irrigation pressures in the range of 5 to 8 psi • High-pressure irrigation is defined as more than 8 psi (use of a 30- to 60-mL syringe and a 18-20 gauge needle) • Animal studies: Rodeheaver, 1975 & Stevenson, 1976, high-pressure irrigation reduce both bacterial wound counts and wound infection rates

  40. 4- Solution: Ideal solution must be: • Not toxic to tissues • Does not increase rate of infection • Does not delay healing • Does not reduce tensile strength of wound healing • Inexpensive

  41. Dire DJ: A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1990. • 531 patients were randomized into 3 groups, and irrigated with: • NS, 1% PI, or pluronic F-68 • No difference in wound infection rate • NS has the lowest cost

  42. Lineaweaver: Cellular and bacterial toxicities of topical antimicrobials. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1985. • 1% povidone-iodine • 3% hydrogen peroxide • 0.25% acetic acid • 0.5% sodium hypochlorite • assayed in vitro using cultures of human fibroblasts and Staphylococcus aureus • All agents tested killed 100 percent of exposed fibroblasts

  43. Then helooked at different dilutions… • …povidone-iodine 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001% • …sodium hypochlorite 0.05, 0.005, 0.0005% • …hydrogen peroxide 3.0, 0.3, 0.03, 0.003% • …acetic acid 0.25, 0.025, 0.0025% • ONLY antiseptic not harmful to fibroblasts yet still bacteriostatic was Povidone iodine 0.001%

  44. Moscati: Comparison of normal saline with tap water for wound irrigation. Am J Emerg Med 1998.   • lacerations were made on each animal and inoculated with standardized concentrations of Staph. aureus • irrigation with 250 cc of either NS from a sterile syringe or water from a tap • no difference in bacterial count in 2 groups

  45. Lammers:Bacterial counts in experimental, contaminated crush wounds irrigated with various concentrations of cefazolin and penicillin. Richard Lammers, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2001. • An animal bite wound model was created • inoculated with 0.4 mL of a standard bacterial solution • each wound was scrubbed for 30 seconds with 20% poloxamer 188 and then irrigated with 100 mL of one of 4 solutions: NS(control); cefazolin + penicillin G (LD); CZ + PCN (ID); and CZ + PCN (HD) • No differences in the bacterial counts or infection rates

  46. Kaczmarek, 1982: Cultured open bottles of saline irrigating solution • 36/169 1000cc bottles were contaminated • 16/105 500cc bottles were contaminated Brown, 1985: Approximately one in five of the opened bottles use for irrigation were contaminated

More Related