Review Article
Wound dressings for primary and revision total joint arthroplasty
Abstract
Background: Preventing post-surgical complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is of great importance, and application of an appropriate wound dressing is necessary. Since no dressing encompasses all the parameters required for ideal wound healing, a comparison of the available dressing types can assist the surgeon to choose the best dressing after TJA.
Methods: Studies evaluating postoperative wound dressings after TJA were reviewed in order to assess the outcomes, complications and costs associated with dressing types.
Results: Traditional cotton dressings have a high ability to absorb exudate. However, they dry out sooner and there is a risk of pain and additional trauma during dressing changes. Although vapor permeable dressings allow transmission of moisture, but they have low absorptive capacity and require frequent changes even with moderately exudating wounds. On the other hand, hydrofiber and hydrocolloid dressings have high absorptive capacity and permeability, and can cope with exudate production. They are changed less often and have low blistering rates, which may reduce surgical site infection (SSI). Although the unit cost associated with advanced dressings is much higher than the traditional dressings, the decreased rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the cost associated with treating PJI more than compensate for it.
Conclusions: Choice of dressing type after TJA should depend upon permeability, absorptive capacity, documented rate of SSI and cost effectiveness with its use, apart from a surgeon’s past clinical experience and familiarity.
Methods: Studies evaluating postoperative wound dressings after TJA were reviewed in order to assess the outcomes, complications and costs associated with dressing types.
Results: Traditional cotton dressings have a high ability to absorb exudate. However, they dry out sooner and there is a risk of pain and additional trauma during dressing changes. Although vapor permeable dressings allow transmission of moisture, but they have low absorptive capacity and require frequent changes even with moderately exudating wounds. On the other hand, hydrofiber and hydrocolloid dressings have high absorptive capacity and permeability, and can cope with exudate production. They are changed less often and have low blistering rates, which may reduce surgical site infection (SSI). Although the unit cost associated with advanced dressings is much higher than the traditional dressings, the decreased rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the cost associated with treating PJI more than compensate for it.
Conclusions: Choice of dressing type after TJA should depend upon permeability, absorptive capacity, documented rate of SSI and cost effectiveness with its use, apart from a surgeon’s past clinical experience and familiarity.
