MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with one dry socket each, at University Dental Hospital Sharjah, were divided into three treatment groups based on their choice. In group I (n = 30), conventional treatment comprising of gentle socket curettage and saline irrigation was done. Group II (n = 15) dry sockets were treated with CGF and group III (n = 15) sockets were lased with LLLT. All dry socket patients were seen at day 0 for treatment and subsequently followed-up at 4, 7, 14, and 21 days. Pain score, perisocket inflammation, perisocket tenderness, and amount of granulation tissue formation were noted.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed as mean values for each treatment group. Comparisons were made for statistical analysis within the group and among the three groups to rank the efficacy of treatment using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant difference is kept at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Conventional treatment group I took more than 7 days to match the healing phase of group II CGF treated socket and group III LLLT irradiated socket (p = 0.001). When healing rate between CGF and LLLT are compared, LLLT group III showed a delay of 4 days compared with CGF in granulation tissue formation and pain control.
CONCLUSION: CGF treated socket was superior to LLLT in its ability to generate 75% granulation tissue and eliminate pain symptom by day 7 (p = 0.001).
METHODS: This was an in vivo study with quasi-experimental methods on 32 Wistar mice. Full-thickness wounds were made and then treated with mitomicyn-C. The mice were divided into 4 groups: a control group with NaCl 0.9% vitreous gel of cow eyeball (VGCE), 1% povidone-iodine, and a combination of VGCE and 1% povidone-iodine groups. Macroscopic and microscopic observations of the process of wound healing were performed on days 3, 7, and 14.
RESULTS: Vitreous gel administration produced significant wound healing rates within the first three days, and histological analysis revealed an increased number of fibroblasts and polymorphonuclear cells. However, the povidone iodine group and the combination group with vitreous gel did not produce significant results.
CONCLUSION: The single administration of VGCE can accelerate the wound healing process, increase the number of fibroblasts, and reduce inflammation in a chronic wound model.
METHODS: This was a comparative case-control study done on patients in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (Hospital USM), requiring split-thickness skin grafting, whereby, the skin graft donor site was divided to almost equal halves, and applied with both gamat-based gel on one side, with Duoderm® hydrogel on the other side. The epithelialization of the wounds was observed and compared on days 10, 14 and 21. Pain score, and pruritus score were also observed. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Paired t-test was used to test statistical significance accordingly.
RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in rates of epithelialization of wounds on days 10, 14 and 21 (p > 0.01). No significant difference was also seen in the pain score and pruritus score (p > 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: A gamat-based gel is comparable to conventional hydrogels in treatment of split-skin graft donor site. No adverse effects were observed in either group.
DESIGN: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-October 2016.
POPULATION: 331 women delivered by caesarean section.
METHOD: Participants were randomised to leaving their wound entirely exposed (n = 165) or dressed (n = 166) with a low adhesive dressing (next day removal).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were superficial SSI rate (assessed by provider inspection up to hospital discharge and telephone questionnaires on days 14 and 28) and patient satisfaction with wound coverage management before hospital discharge.
RESULTS: The superficial SSI rates were 2/153 (1.3%) versus 5/157 (3.2%) (relative risk [RR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-2.1; P = 0.45) and patient satisfaction with wound management was 7 [5-8] versus 7 [5-8] (P = 0.81) in exposed compared with dressed study groups, respectively. In the wound-exposed patients, stated preference for wound exposure significantly increased from 35.5 to 57.5%, whereas in the wound-dressed patients, the stated preference for a dressed wound fell from 48.5 to 34.4% when assessed at recruitment (pre-randomisation) to day 28. There were no significant differences in inpatient additional dressing or gauze use for wound care, post-hospital discharge self-reported wound issues of infection, antibiotics, redness and inflammation, swollen, painful, and fluid leakage to day 28 across trial groups.
CONCLUSION: The trial is underpowered as SSI rates were lower than expected. Nevertheless, leaving caesarean wounds exposed does not appear to have detrimental effects, provided patient counselling to manage expectations is undertaken.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An exposed compared with a dressed caesarean wound has a similar superficial surgical site infection rate, patient satisfaction and appearance.