4.2 Article

A Glycerin Hydrogel-Based Wound Dressing Prevents Peristomal Infections After Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG): A Prospective, Randomized Study

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 422-425

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0884533612444536

关键词

gastrostomy; enteral nutrition; wound infection; occlusive dressings

资金

  1. ZAFES, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
  2. Medi-Globe GmbH, Schweinfurt, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics, peristomal infection is the most common complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A new glycerin hydrogel (GHG) wound dressing has been proposed to possess more effective antimicrobial properties but has not been tested in a larger trial. The aim of the study was therefore to assess the superiority of GHG regarding the incidence of peristomal wound infections during a 30-day postprocedure follow-up. Methods: Sixty-eight patients with cancer undergoing PEG were recruited from 1 university and 2 general hospitals between January 2007 and December 2008. Patients were randomized to group 1 (34 patients), which received GHG, or group 2 (34 patients), which received a traditional wound dressing. Dressing changes were done at day 1 and weeks 1, 2, and 4 (group 1) vs daily changes during week 1 and at weeks 2 and 4 (group 2). The PEG site was assessed by using 2 different infection scores. Results: At the end of the first and second weeks, a statistically significant reduction of the mean infection scores was seen in patients with GHG wound dressings (first week: 1.64 +/- 1.6 vs 3.12 +/- 2.69, P < .008; second week: 1.37 +/- 1.11 vs 2.53 +/- 2.37, P < .02). After 7 days, wound reactions occurred in 14.7% in the GHG group vs 47.05% in the traditional group (p < 0.005). The GHG wound dressing required 5 times less frequent dressing changes. Conclusion: The GHG wound dressing significantly reduces peristomal wound infections and is a convenient, cost-effective alternative for wound management following PEG. (Nutr Clin Pract. 2012;27:422-425)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据