Simple Wound Irrigation in the Postoperative Treatment for Surgically Drained Spontaneous Soft Tissue Abscesses: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin abscesses are a frequent encountered health care problem and lead to a significant source of morbidity. They consequently have an essential impact on the quality of life and work. To date, the type of aftercare for surgically drained abscesses remains under debate. This leads to undesirable practice variations. Many clinical standard protocols include sterile wound dressings twice a day by a home-care service to reduce the chance of a recurrent wound infection. It is unknown, however, whether reinfection rates are comparable to adequate wound irrigation with a nonsterile solution performed by the patient. Our hypothesis is that simple wound irrigation with nonsterile water for postoperative wound care after an abscess is surgically drained is feasible. We assume that in terms of reinfection and reintervention rates unsterile wound irrigation is equal to sterile wound irrigation. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is therefore to investigate if there is a need for sterile wound irrigation after surgically drained spontaneous skin abscesses. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized controlled, single-blinded, single-center trial based on a noninferiority design, we will enroll 128 patients randomized to either the control or the intervention group. The control group will be treated according to our current, standard protocol in which all patients receive a sterile wound irrigation performed by a home-care service twice a day. Patients randomized to the intervention group will be treated with a nonsterile wound irrigation (shower) twice a day. All patients will have a routine clinical control visit after 1, 3, 6, and 12 weeks in the outpatient clinic. Primary outcome is the reinfection and reoperation rate due to insufficient wound healing diagnosed either at the outpatient control visit or during general practitioner visits. Secondary outcome measures include a Short Form Health Survey, Visual Analog Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Vancouver Scar Scale, and the EurolQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire. Those questionnaires will be completed at the outpatient control visits. RESULTS: The trial was started in June 2016 and enrolled 50 patients by article publication. Regarding the adherence to our protocol, we found 10% of loss to follow-up until now. Only 2 patients needed reoperation and only 1 patient needed a change of treatment (antiseptic therapy). Most patients are happy with their randomized treatment but as expected some patients in the sterile group complained about timing problems with their working hours and home-care service appointments. Most patients in the nonsterile group are satisfied being able to take care of their wounds independently although some patients still depend on the home-care service for the wound dressing. We are hoping to have enrolled enough patients by summer 2017. The follow-up will take until autumn 2017, and study results are expected to be published by the end of 2017. This trial is solely supported by the cantonal hospital of Lucerne. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsterile wound irrigation is more likely to be carried out independently by the patient than sterile wound irrigation. Therefore, if nonsterile wound care shows comparable results in terms of reinfection and reintervention rates, patient independence in the aftercare of surgically drained abscesses will increase, patients can return to work earlier, and health care costs can be reduced. In a preliminary, conservative estimation of health care costs, an annual savings of 300,000 CHF will be achieved in our hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010418; https://drks-neu.uniklinik-freiburg.de/ drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00010418 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6q0AXp5EX).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".