Systematization of dressings for clinical treatment of wounds Systematization of dressings for clinical treatment of wounds Sistematização de curativos para o tratamento clínico das feridas ABSTRACT The treatment of cutaneous wounds includes both medical and surgical methods; dressing is one of the most commonly used clinical treatments. An extensive therapeutic toolkit comprising passive dressings or dressings with active principles can help repair wounds in various situations. Dressings are used to improve the conditions of the wound bed and may occasionally be considered the definitive treatment, whereas in some cases, they may be considered an intermediate step to surgical treatment. Intelligent and biological wound dressings are currently classified as dermal substitutes and will not be discussed in this article. Dressings should be selected on the basis of knowledge of the pathophysiology of wound healing and tissue repair while keeping the systemic problems of the patient in mind. Keywords: Bandages. Wound healing. Wounds and injuries. RESUMO O tratamento das feridas cutâneas inclui métodos clínicos e cirúrgicos, sendo o curativo um dos tratamentos clínicos mais frequentemente utilizados. Um vasto arsenal terapêutico composto por curativos passivos ou com princípios ativos é capaz de auxiliar na reparação do tegumento em diversas situações. Curativos visam a melhorar as condições do leito da ferida, podendo ser, em algumas ocasiões, o próprio tratamento definitivo, mas em muitas situações constituem apenas uma etapa intermediária para o tratamento cirúrgico. Curativos inteligentes e biológicos são hoje mais bem classificados como substitutos cutâneos e não serão considerados neste artigo. A escolha do curativo a ser utilizado deve ser baseada no conhecimento das bases fisiopatológicas da cicatrização e da reparação tecidual, sem nunca esquecer o quadro sistêmico do paciente. Descritores: Bandagens. Cicatrização. Ferimentos e lesões.

A significant part of the local population still faces many difficulties in accessing surgical care, particularly in the north and northeast of the country, where there are fewer hospitals and surgeons. Physicians and surgeons are particularly scarce in the public health system nationwide, and better incentives are needed to ensure an equal public and private workforce.

Background: There is currently no consensus on the utility of preoperative computed tomography (CT) in nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the evidence available on the necessity of preoperative CT for the treatment of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) database was performed. The following variables were analyzed: concordance of findings between clinical examinations and CT, incidental findings reported on imaging, and the effect of imaging on subsequent management. Concordance between clinical examination/CT and the presence of incidental findings were collected and displayed as descriptive data. The effect of imaging on subsequent diagnosis/management was analyzed by meta-analysis. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 728 patients. Overall, physical examination concordance with CT diagnosis was 97.9% (371/379). Overall, incidental findings led to additional imaging/workup in 1.79% of cases (5/278). The results of the meta-analysis revealed that, in the absence of alternative imaging modalities, CT scans significantly altered diagnosis or led to additional investigations in 12 cases (4.8%, 95% confidence interval = 3%–8%). Preoperative CT scans led to additional investigations in 5 cases and detected incomplete/wrong diagnoses in 7 cases. Conclusions: The results of the present meta-analysis support the use of preoperative CT scans for nonsyndromic craniosynostosis in the absence of alternative imaging modalities. The results also suggest that in properly selected patients, alternative imaging modalities may be appropriate, potentially obviating the need for CT scans.

Background: Traumatic frontal fractures result from high force injuries and can result in significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate our Montreal General Hospital (MGH) experience with frontal bone fractures. Methods: A comprehensive review of our trauma database was performed. All adult patients (>18 years) presenting with a diagnosis of frontal sinus fracture were identified. A thorough retrospective electronic medical records search was performed and relevant data extracted. Specifically, all cases of ocular injury or sequelae were identified and an in-depth review was performed. Results: Between 2008 and 2014, 10,189 trauma patients presented to the MUHC Level 1 trauma center. A total of 1277 patients presented with a facial fracture and 140 had a frontal sinus fracture. The mean age was 43.5 years, 90% were male and the mean hospitalization time was 16.2 days. A significant proportion of patients suffered concomitant craniomaxillofacial fractures including orbital (79%), maxillary (66%), nasal (64%), zygomaticomaxillary complex (34%), nasoorbitoethmoid (31%), Lefort types I-III (18%), and mandibular (8%). Associated cervical spine injuries were documented in 16% of patients. Ocular injuries were present in 30% of subjects. 26% of patients had some form of permanent sequelae from their trauma, mainly neurological. Conclusions: Due to the intimate association of the frontal bones with the brain and the orbits, frontal sinus fractures demand a sophisticated multidisciplinary craniofacial surgical approach. Given the high rate of ocular injury of 30% as well as severe systemic injuries, the authors propose a modified treatment algorithm for these complex cases.

Background: Despite recent advances in surgical, anesthetic, and safety protocols in the management of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis (NSC), significant rates of intraoperative blood loss continue to be reported by multiple centers. The purpose of the current study was to examine our center’s experience with the surgical correction of NSC in an effort to determine independent risk factors of transfusion requirements. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients with NSC undergoing surgical correction at the Montreal Children’s Hospital was carried out. Baseline characteristics and perioperative complications were compared between patients receiving and not receiving transfusions and between those receiving a transfusion in excess or <25 cc/kg. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine independent predictors of transfusion requirements. Results: A total of 100 patients met our inclusion criteria with a mean transfusion requirement of 29.6 cc/kg. Eighty-seven patients (87%) required a transfusion, and 45 patients (45%) required a significant (>25 cc/kg) intraoperative transfusion. Regression analysis revealed that increasing length of surgery was the main determinant for intraoperative (P = 0.008; odds ratio, 18.48; 95% CI, 2.14–159.36) and significant (>25 cc/kg) intraoperative (P = 0.004; odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.23–3.07) transfusions. Conclusions: Our findings suggest increasing operative time as the predominant risk factor for intraoperative transfusion requirements. We encourage craniofacial surgeons to consider techniques to streamline the delivery of their selected procedure, in an effort to reduce operative time while minimizing the need for transfusion.