Table 1 Summary of published data on wound edge protection devices
Lead Author | Year of Publication | Title | Type of Study | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Horiuchi [12] | 2007 | Randomised, controlled investigation of the anti-infective properties of the Alexis retractor/protector of incision sites | RCT; 2 arms - control vs. wound-edge protector | Looks well-designed 221 patients Positive results Single centre |
Kercher [9] | 2004 | Plastic wound protectors do not affect wound infection rates following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy | Retrospective review | Descriptive study only 141 patients Laparoscopic cases |
Nakagoe [10] | 2001 | Minilaparotomy wound edge protector (Lap-protector): a new device | Description of technique | Descriptive study only No comparison group |
Sookhai [11] | 1999 | Impervious wound-edge protector to reduce postoperative wound infection: a randomised, controlled trial | RCT; 2 arms -control vs. wound-edge protector | Looks well-designed 352 patients Positive results Single centre |
Nystrom [13] | 1983 | A controlled trial of plastic wound ring drape to prevent contaminations and infection in colorectal surgery | RCT; 2 arms - control vs. wound-edge protector | 140 patients No benefit found Old-generation device |
Psaila [14] | 1977 | The role of plastic wound drapes in the prevention of wound infection following abdominal surgery | RCT; 3 arms - control vs. adhesive drape vs. wound-edge protector | 154 patients No benefit from either device Poor follow-up |
Alexander -Williams [15] | 1972 | Abdominal wound infections and plastic wound guards | RCT; 2 arms - control vs. wound-edge protector | 167 patients Poor follow-up to 10 days only Inconsistent design |
Maxwel [16] | 1969 | Abdominal wound infections and plastic drape protectors | Comparative study | No randomisation Poorly designed study 202 patients |