Postoperative Wound Scoring

Byrne, D. J.; Napier, A.; Cuschieri, Alfred

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92708-0

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Byrne and co-workers 189 described ASEPSIS as a 'complex multidimensional index of wound severity' and recommended it be standardised to a range of 0 and 1. Since ASEPSIS has been devised as an index, although this property has not been acknowledged by Wilson and co-workers 129 or subsequent users, it should be validated on criteria by which indices are usually judged.…”

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since ASEPSIS has been devised as an index, although this property has not been acknowledged by Wilson and co-workers 129 or subsequent users, it should be validated on criteria by which indices are usually judged. Whilst recognising that the ASEPSIS scoring system is reliable, comparable and reproducible, Byrne and co-workers 189 raised some questions regarding the validity of the assumptions underlying ASEPSIS. They broke down ASEPSIS into two parts.…”

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The variable component can have a maximum score of 30 points per day and is scored on 5 out of 7 days. Byrne and coworkers 189 suggested that this weighting implies that the index is biased since, when there is no or very little infection (a low ASEPSIS score), the weight of the constant is greater than the variable part, while the reverse is true for severe infection. Similarly, they queried the rationale behind the different weighting of elements within parts.…”

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events

Bruce

Russell

Mollison

et al. 2001

Health Technol Assess

299

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. Contact Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK.We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAThe measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme was set up in 1993 to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.Initially, six HTA panels (pharmaceuticals, acute sector, primary and community care, diagnostics and imaging, population screening, methodology) helped to set the research priorities for the HTA Programme. However, during the past few years there have been a number of changes in and around NHS R&D, such as the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the creation of three new research programmes: Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO); New and Emerging Applications of Technology (NEAT); and the Methodology Programme.Although the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) commissions research on behalf of the Methodology Programme, it is the Methodology Group that now considers and advises the Methodology Programme Director on the best research projects to pursue.The research reported in this monograph was funded as project number 97/16/04.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Methodology Programme, HTA Programme or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit supp...

show abstract

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Formal Validation Of Wound Grading Scales Asepsismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events

Bruce

Russell

Mollison

et al. 2001

Health Technol Assess

299

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wilson et al [9] and Byrne et al [10] suggested ASEPSIS scoring method is considered to be an objective, reliable, and reproducible method of surgical wound assessment, making it applicable to all forms of surgery and takes into account a large multidimensional number of easily made assessments for final classification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of supplemental oxygen in reducing surgical site infection in acute appendicities: Our experience of sixty four cases

Wasnik¹,

Agrawal²,

Yede³

et al. 2015

Int J of Biomed & Adv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To assess whether use of 80% oxygen reduces the frequency of surgical site infection in patients undergoing open appendectomy for appendicitis. Material & Methods: A randomised control study was conducted in the department of general surgery at NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center & Lata Mangeshkar Hospital Nagpur. Sixty four patients undergoing open appendectomy via incision in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen were divided randomly into study group ie. patients receiving 80% oxygen during anesthesia, followed by high-flow oxygen for 2 hours in the recovery room and the control group receiving 30% oxygen, as usual. Surgical site infection will be assessed by the ASEPSIS (additional treatment, serous discharge, erythema, purulent discharge, separation of deep tissues, isolation of bacteria, and stay in hospital prolonged >14 days) system score. SPSS statistical software version 16.0 was used for data analysis. Results:The age distribution between the study and control group was statistically similar with p = 0.627. The sex distribution between the study and control group was statistically similar with p = 0.157. There were no medical comorbidities seen in both groups. The body temperature distribution between the study [mean ±SD = 37.02±0.12)] and control [mean ±SD = 37.06(0.24))] group was statistically similar with p = 0.272. Duration of abdominal pain was not significant with p=0.596. Preoperative analysis like WBC count, abdominal tenderness, Abdominal rigidity, hemoglobin, serum creatinine, blood urea, USG abdomen distribution was statistically not significant with p value >0.05. Duration of operation distribution between the groups was not significant with p=0.874. There was no surgical site infection seen in study as well as control group. All the cases in study as well as control group have satisfactory healing. There was significant (p=0.003) longer hospital stay in control group. Conclusion: Our study concludes that there is no role of supplemental oxygen in reducing surgical site infection in acute appendicitis.

show abstract

“…Wounds were evaluated daily by blinded investigators; both pus and a positive culture were required for diagnosis of infection. Wound scores [66] were 5 ± 9 in the patients given 30% oxygen and 3 ± 7 in those given 80%, P = 0.019. (All results are expressed as means ± SDs.).…”

Section: Supplemental Oxygen Reduces Infection Riskmentioning

confidence: 91%

Non-pharmacologic Prevention of Surgical Wound Infection

Sessler

2006

Anesthesiology Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wound infections are serious and relatively common postoperative complications. They are generally detected five to nine days after surgery and are usually attributed, even by surgeons, to poor surgical technique or failure to maintain sterility. However, it has been known for decades that all wounds become contaminated, often by bacteria from the skin or within the patient, and that it is host defense mechanisms that prevent most contamination from developing into clinical infections. Host defense is especially important during the initial hours following contamination, i.e., the immediate perioperative period.As might thus be expected, factors that improve host defense reduce infection risk. Many of these are under the direct control of anesthesiologists and are at least as important as appropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics, which halve infection risk [1]. This article will review nonpharmacologic methods of reducing infection risk, with special emphasis on methods available to anesthesiologists.

show abstract

Postoperative Wound Scoring

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events

The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events

Role of supplemental oxygen in reducing surgical site infection in acute appendicities: Our experience of sixty four cases

Non-pharmacologic Prevention of Surgical Wound Infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About