Cochrane · systematic review · CD006214
Debridement for surgical wounds
Smith, F, Donaldson, J, Brown, T · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
36
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
25
Included studies
NR
No studies 25 · 69.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 19.4%Low 4 · 11.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Dextranomer beads (autolytic) compared with Eusol gauze for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed ( Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing (days) Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs Eusol gauze | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Dextranomer paste (autolytic) compared with 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed ( Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing (days) Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Dextranomer paste (autolytic) compared with 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed ( Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing (days) Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Dextranomer paste (autolytic) vs 0.1% chloramine‐soaked dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dextranomer beads (autolytic) compared with silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing (days) Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Dextranomer beads (autolytic) vs silicone foam elastomer (autolytic) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) compared with saline‐soaked dressing for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed ( Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 21 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing (days) Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Streptokinase/streptodornase (enzymatic) vs saline‐soaked dressing | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method versus conventional 'open' surgical debridement for debridement of surgical wounds
Population: adults with surgical wounds
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to a clean wound bed (minutes) Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 106 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of wounds completely debrided Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Rate of reduction in wound size Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete healing ( Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 106 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Serious adverse events: life‐threatening/ hospitalisation Surgical debridement via an endoscopic method vs conventional 'open' surgical debridement | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |