Evidence Hub

Patients with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: A prospective, cohort study

I. Chetter, A. Oswald, E. McGinnis, N. Stubbs, C. Arundel, H. Buckley, K. Bell, J. Dumville et al.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2019

393 participants · 46 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Surgical wounds healing by secondary intention can be difficult and costly to manage and are profoundly under researched. This prospective inception, cohort study aimed to derive a better understanding of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention and to facilitate the design of future research investigating effective treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention and the surgeries that preceded their wounds; to clearly delineate the clinical outcomes of these patients, specifically focusing on time to wound healing and its determinants; to explore the types of treatments for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention; and to assess the impact surgical wounds healing by secondary intention have on patients' quality of life.

DESIGN

Prospective, inception cohort study.

SETTING

Acute and community settings in eight sites across two large centres in the United Kingdom (Hull and Leeds, UK).

METHODS

Patients with a surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (an open wound, <3 weeks' duration, resulting from surgery), were recruited and followed up for at least 12 months. Key outcome events included: time to healing; treatment type; infection; hospital re-admission and further procedures; health-related quality of life and pain.

RESULTS

In total, 393 patients were recruited. Common co-morbidities were cardiovascular disease (38%), diabetes (26%) and peripheral vascular disease…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 393 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free