Al terzo anno dalla nascita del nostro sito i dati hanno premiato la nostra: passione, le nostre competenze e professionalità.
Ringraziamo tutti i followers per supportarci e sopportarci (!), con una media giornaliera di 300 contatti, in questo nostro percorso divulgativo in ambito del Wound Care …
Ma il bello deve ancora arrivare… STAY TUNED!
GRAZIE Lo Staff.
Il National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) è orgoglioso di annunciare che giovedì 19 novembre 2020 si celebrerà la Giornata mondiale per la prevenzione delle lesioni da pressione .
L’obiettivo della Giornata mondiale per la prevenzione degli infortuni da pressione è quello di aumentare la consapevolezza sulla prevenzione degli infortuni da pressione e di educare il pubblico su questo argomento. NPIAP ha sviluppato un ampio pacchetto di materiali multimediali, appropriato per tutte le strutture e le organizzazioni sanitarie, disponibile di seguito.
Un modo per aumentare la consapevolezza sulla prevenzione degli infortuni da pressione è contattare il governatore del proprio stato e richiedere l’emissione di un proclama. Un proclama è un annuncio onorario che riconosce l’importanza di un evento per il pubblico in generale.
Innanzitutto, fai clic QUI per scaricare il nostro modello di proclamazione.
Successivamente, compila con le informazioni pertinenti.
Quindi, fai clic QUI per trovare il sito Web del tuo stato in cui dovresti inviare il documento.
Grazie per il tuo attivismo!
[ Tratto da: www.npiap.com ]
Questo è stato un anno straordinario, trasformativo e imprevedibile in tanti modi. Gli operatori sanitari (HCP) hanno lavorato per lunghi turni, spesso in prima linea nell’assistenza al nuovo coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), mettendo a rischio la propria salute personale. Nonostante queste sfide, hanno continuato non solo a fornire assistenza nei loro “lavori giornalieri”, ma anche a trovare il tempo nei loro frenetici programmi per fare volontariato come revisori tra pari per Advances in Skin & Wound Care. Come abbiamo appreso, il virus ha impatti di vasta portata per ogni settore; quando è iniziata la pandemia, non era chiaro quali implicazioni avrebbe avuto COVID-19 sulla pubblicazione. Ci sarebbe ancora un’assunzione costante di manoscritti? I nostri revisori paritari in tutto il mondo avrebbero la disponibilità ad andare oltre i loro ruoli di lavoro estesi o anche normali e ad accettare i nostri inviti a rivedere i manoscritti in un momento così difficile?
Quello che è successo ha superato le nostre aspettative. Abbiamo continuato a ricevere un numero record di richieste; ci preoccupavamo di cosa ciò avrebbe significato per i nostri revisori. Tuttavia, anche quando gli invitati non sono stati in grado di completare una revisione tra pari nel periodo di tempo richiesto, hanno rifiutato rapidamente l’invito in modo che qualcun altro potesse essere invitato. Questo è stato così utile. Abbiamo lavorato duramente per sollecitare ed espandere il numero di esperti di cura della pelle e delle ferite nel nostro database, concentrandoci su una varietà di revisori per posizione geografica e fase della carriera. Avere un buon mix di revisori all’inizio, a metà e nelle fasi successive della loro carriera significa che ogni manoscritto può beneficiare della saggezza dell’esperienza e / o delle nuove prospettive di un principiante. Con più revisori, possiamo limitare il numero di inviti a un singolo esperto e quindi, auspicabilmente, prevenire l’affaticamento o il burnout del revisore tra pari.
Diamo il benvenuto a tutti i nostri nuovi membri del comitato consultivo editoriale, ai panelisti di revisione tra pari e ai revisori tra pari per la prima volta, oltre a ringraziare tutti i nostri revisori continui. Si prega di guardare i nomi sul nostro masthead e nella pagina successiva. L’attuale “spirito di corpo” ha creato una commovente comunità dedicata all’avanzamento della conoscenza e al miglioramento della pratica per i nostri lettori e i loro pazienti. I commenti migliori sono stati da coloro che si sono sentiti “coinvolti” e che ” Advances è ‘il nostro diario'”, indicando il loro toccante impegno per la nostra missione e dichiarazioni di visione. Un commento recente in particolare illustra i nostri obiettivi comuni: “Tutti noi interessati alla cura del paziente con ferite, alle complessità della cura delle ferite e alla scienza della guarigione delle ferite siamo un team entusiasta e impegnato”.
Dal 21 al 25 settembre, celebriamo la nostra comunità durante la Peer Review Week 2020. 1,2 Come in passato, si tratta di un evento globale virtuale che non solo attira l’attenzione sul ruolo della revisione tra pari, ma celebra anche l’importanza della revisione tra pari gioca nel mantenimento della qualità scientifica. Ogni anno ha un tema e quest’anno è “Trust in Peer Review”. 1 Questo è stato un anno particolarmente fluido che ha spinto molti operatori sanitari nella posizione di valutare rapidamente le informazioni in rapida evoluzione e prendere decisioni cliniche sui modi migliori per procedere; di conseguenza, mai la fiducia nelle nostre pubblicazioni scientifiche è stata più necessaria.
Quando si tratta di fiducia, gli operatori sanitari possono fare affidamento sulla guida scritta da organizzazioni che hanno stabilito la loro esperienza e il loro impegno per l’eccellenza. Ad esempio, l’articolo sulla formazione continua di questo numero della dott.ssa Mary Litchford, ex presidente del NPIAP, fornisce un importante riepilogo dei punti chiave della Prevenzione e trattamento delle ulcere da pressione / lesioni del 2019 : linea guida di pratica clinica . Questo articolo può aiutare gli operatori sanitari a identificare i principali cambiamenti nelle linee guida riguardanti la nutrizione e utilizzare la pratica tabella sui nutrienti essenziali per mettere in pratica questa nuova conoscenza. Inoltre, questo numero include una serie diversificata di articoli di approfondimento; confidiamo che troverai queste pagine piene di utili informazioni scientifiche convalidate dal nostro incredibile team di esperti.
[ Tratto da: www.journals.lww.com ]
Terrific valedictory work by our long-time SALSAmigo, Prof. Alberto Piaggesi, et al from Pisa.
Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who underwent diabetic foot surgery (DFS) managed directly by diabetologists in a third-level Centre over 15-year.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 1.857 patients affected by diabetic foot (Age 67.1 ± 12.3 yrs, diabetes duration 19.2 ± 9.8 yrs, HbA1c 8.1 ± 2.0%) treated in our Department between 2001 and 2015 and divided them into 3 groups: Group 1, treated between 2001 and 2005 (448 pts), group 2, between 2006 and 2010 (540 pts) and Group 3, between 2011 and 2015 (869 pts). Main clinical outcomes [peripheral revascularization rate (PR), healing rate (HR), healing time (HT), recurrences after healing (R), major amputation (MA) and death (D) rates] were compared between groups.
Results: The overall outcomes of our cohort were: HR 81.6% (HT 143 ± 54 days), PR 84.8%, MA 4.9% and D 27.9%. There were no differences in clinical characteristics, except for age, higher (p < 0.05) in Group 3 (70.6 ± 14.7 yrs) than in Groups 1 (64.4 ± 11.6 yrs) and 2 (65.1 ± 11.2 yrs). No differences emerged when comparing HR and MA; HT was shorter (p < 0.05) in group 3 (104 ± 44 days) than in Group 2 (169 ± 72 days) and 1 (235 ± 67 days). D was higher (p < 0.05) in Group 3 (43.8%) than in Group 1 (23.1%) and 2 (28.1%). PR was 19.4% in Group 1, 28.1% in Group 2 and 53.8% in Group 3 (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Despite the increasing age and complexity of patients our data show improve- ment of outcomes throughout 15 years, probably due to better surgical techniques, more aggressive medical therapy and more effective treatment of critical limb ischemia.
[ Tratto da: www.diabeticfootonline.com ]
To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial‐thickness burns.
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta‐analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial‐thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery.
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, ‘Risk of bias’ assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial‐thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low‐certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision.
There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI −12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health‐related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported.
This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low‐certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health‐related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.
Background
Burns are common injuries worldwide and can cause illness, lifelong disability and even death. Deep burns often require surgery because the skin is too damaged to heal on its own. The damaged, burnt skin must therefore be cut away (debridement) and replaced with healthy skin, which is typically a very thin layer of healthy skin (graft) taken from another part of the body. Debridement is normally done with a specific surgical knife.
Recently, a high‐pressure, water‐based jet system has been developed, known as hydrosurgery. This tool removes burnt skin only, leaving behind the unburned, healthy skin. Hydrosurgery may be more accurate than a knife in terms of removing burned skin, which may lead to better healing.
All open wounds, including burns, are at risk of infection so adequate debridement is important to reduce the risk of infection. If the wound is closed quickly, it will heal better, with less scarring and less risk of infection.
What did we want to find out?
In this Cochrane Review, we wanted to know whether burns treated with hydrosurgery heal more quickly and with fewer infections than burns treated with a knife. We also wanted to see whether there were any differences in overall quality of life, how well the wound healed in terms of scarring and the amount of medical resources used (using measures like the number of dressing changes and burn clinic appointments, length of hospital stay, and whether further surgery was needed).
Our methods
We searched medical databases for randomised controlled trials that compared burn treatment using hydrosurgery with conventional debridement. Randomised controlled trials are medical studies where the treatment people receive is chosen at random. This type of study provides the most reliable evidence about whether different approaches to health care make a difference. Participants in the studies could be any age. The studies could have taken place anywhere and be reported in any language.
What are the main results of the review?
We found only one Australian study that included 61 children with small burns. The children were randomly allocated to treatment with either hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. Hydrosurgery made little or no difference in the time burns took to heal completely, infection after the operation, or scarring compared to conventional debridement. There was little or no difference in the length of time debridement took using hydrosurgery compared with conventional surgery. The study did not give any information about quality of life or resource use.
Certainty of the evidence
Our certainty (confidence) in the evidence was very limited because we found only one study. It only included children, so the results may not apply to adults or people with more severe burns. It was a randomised study, but did not report the outcomes we expected it to, so we are not sure how reliable its results are.
Conclusions
We do not know if hydrosurgery is better than conventional surgery for early treatment of mid‐depth burns. We need more studies to investigate this question.
[Tratto da: www.cochranelibrary.com ]
Patients with diabetes mellitus have a lifetime risk of 15% to 25% of developing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). DFU is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Wound imaging systems are useful adjuncts in monitoring of wound progress. Our study aims to review existing literature on the available wound assessment and monitoring systems for DFU. This is a systematic review of articles from PubMed and Embase (1974 – March 2020). All studies related to wound assessment or monitoring systems in DFUs were included. Articles on other types of wounds, review articles, and non-English texts were excluded. Outcomes include clinical use, wound measurement statistics, hospital system integration, and other advantages and challenges. The search identified 531 articles. Seventeen full-text studies were eligible for the final analysis. Five modalities were identified: (a) computer applications or hand-held devices (n = 5), (b) mobile applications (n = 2), (c) optical imaging (n = 2), (d) spectroscopy or hyperspectral imaging (n = 4), and (e) artificial intelligence (n = 4). Most studies (n = 16) reported on wound assessment or monitoring. Only one study reported on data capturing. Two studies on the use of computer applications reported low inter-observer variability in wound measurement (inter-rater reliability >0.99, and inter-observer variability 15.9% respectively). Hand-held commercial devices demonstrated high accuracy (relative error of 2.1%-6.8%). Use of spectroscopy or hyperspectral imaging in prediction of wound healing has a sensitivity and specificity of 80% to 90% and 74%to 86%, respectively. Majority of the commercially available wound assessment systems have not been reviewed in the literature on measurement accuracy. In conclusion, most imaging systems are superior to traditional wound assessment. Wound imaging systems should be used as adjuncts in DFU monitoring.
Keywords: artificial intelligence; diabetic foot; mobile applications; wound healing; wounds and injuries.
[Tratto da: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ]
The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes.
To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers’ performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts.
Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care.
We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high‐income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties.
Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists
We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low.
Mobile technologies:
‐ probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants);
‐ probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants);
‐ may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported);
‐ probably make little or no difference to patient‐reported quality of life and health‐related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician‐assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions;
‐ may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists;
‐ may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants).
Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department
We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate.
Mobile technologies:
‐ probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference −12 minutes, 95% CI −19 to −7; 1 trial, 345 participants);
‐ probably reduce participants’ length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference −30 minutes, 95% CI −37 to −25; 1 trial, 345 participants).
We did not identify trials that reported on providers’ adherence, participants’ health status and well‐being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.
Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home‐care workers to consult with clinic staff
We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low.
Mobile technologies:
‐ probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants);
‐ may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants);
‐ may make little or no difference to participants’ disease activity or health‐related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants);
‐ probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants).
We did not identify any trials that reported on providers’ adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.
Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants’ health status and well‐being, satisfaction, or costs.
[Tratto da: www.cochranelibrary.com ]
