Abdominal Wall Wound Clinical Trial
Official title:
Impact of Timing of Wound Dressing Removal After Cesarean Section: Effect of Dressing Removal at 24 Hours Versus 48 Hours on Wound Healing and Incidence of Surgical Site Infections Following Cesarean Section
NCT number | NCT02445729 |
Other study ID # | 14-0548 |
Secondary ID | |
Status | Completed |
Phase | N/A |
First received | |
Last updated | |
Start date | March 2015 |
Est. completion date | January 31, 2019 |
Verified date | June 2019 |
Source | The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
The purpose of this study is to assess wound healing at 24 vs 48 hours post cesarean delivery with a modified 1-day ASEPSIS score.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 869 |
Est. completion date | January 31, 2019 |
Est. primary completion date | February 2017 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
Gender | Female |
Age group | 18 Years to 44 Years |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - low-risk obstetric patients aged 18-44 years with term, singleton pregnancies who planned to have Cesarean Delivery (CD). CD indications: 1. Scheduled nonlabored primary CD for fetal malpresentation, 2. Suspected macrosomia, 3. Maternal request, 4. Placental anomaly, 5. Abnormal / indeterminate fetal heart tracing without labor. 6. First, second, and third repeat CDs will be included. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Preeclampsia, 2. Preeclampsia with severe features, 3. Eclampsia, 4. Known preoperative infectious disease, any unknown origin preoperative fever, 5. Diabetes, 6. Pregnant with premature rupture of membrane (PROM) or rupture of membrane (ROM), 7. Intraoperative findings suggestive of an underlying cancerous condition, 8. Vertical skin incision, 9. Planned hysterectomy during CD. |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Turkey | Etlik Zübeyde Hanim Women's Health Training and Research Hospital | Ankara | |
Turkey | Dicle University | Diyarbakir | |
United States | University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston | Galveston | Texas |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston | Dicle University, Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Women's Health Care, Training and Research Hospital |
United States, Turkey,
Baum CL, Arpey CJ. Normal cutaneous wound healing: clinical correlation with cellular and molecular events. Dermatol Surg. 2005 Jun;31(6):674-86; discussion 686. Review. — View Citation
Deodhar AK, Rana RE. Surgical physiology of wound healing: a review. J Postgrad Med. 1997 Apr-Jun;43(2):52-6. Review. — View Citation
Eaglstein WH, Davis SC, Mehle AL, Mertz PM. Optimal use of an occlusive dressing to enhance healing. Effect of delayed application and early removal on wound healing. Arch Dermatol. 1988 Mar;124(3):392-5. — View Citation
HINMAN CD, MAIBACH H. EFFECT OF AIR EXPOSURE AND OCCLUSION ON EXPERIMENTAL HUMAN SKIN WOUNDS. Nature. 1963 Oct 26;200:377-8. — View Citation
Hultén L. Dressings for surgical wounds. Am J Surg. 1994 Jan;167(1A):42S-44S; discussion 44S-45S. Review. — View Citation
Li J, Chen J, Kirsner R. Pathophysiology of acute wound healing. Clin Dermatol. 2007 Jan-Feb;25(1):9-18. Review. — View Citation
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96. — View Citation
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Surgical Site Infection: Prevention and Treatment of Surgical Site Infection. London: RCOG Press; 2008 Oct. — View Citation
Singer AJ, Clark RA. Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 2;341(10):738-46. Review. — View Citation
Wilson AP, Gibbons C, Reeves BC, Hodgson B, Liu M, Plummer D, Krukowski ZH, Bruce J, Wilson J, Pearson A. Surgical wound infection as a performance indicator: agreement of common definitions of wound infection in 4773 patients. BMJ. 2004 Sep 25;329(7468):720. Epub 2004 Sep 14. — View Citation
Wilson AP, Treasure T, Sturridge MF, Grüneberg RN. A scoring method (ASEPSIS) for postoperative wound infections for use in clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):311-3. — View Citation
Winter GD. Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelisation of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. 1962. J Wound Care. 1995 Sep;4(8):366-7; discussion 368-71. — View Citation
* Note: There are 12 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Patients' satisfaction | 24 or 48 Hours Postoperative | ||
Other | Patients' satisfaction | 1 Week Follow-Up | ||
Other | Patients' satisfaction | 6 Week Follow-Up | ||
Primary | ASEPSIS Wound Score (1-day) | 24 or 48 Hours Postoperative | ||
Secondary | ASEPSIS Wound Score (1-day) | 1 Week Follow-Up | ||
Secondary | ASEPSIS Wound Score (1-day) | 6 Week Follow-Up |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT06016426 -
Mass Closure vs Layer by Layer Closure
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01901068 -
MonoMax for Abdominal Wall Closure
|
N/A |