Two methods of cord care in high-risk newborns

Abstract

This randomized clinical study explored the effects of two cord care methods on hydration, temperature, pH, and floras at the cord area in high-risk newborns. One group used the water method; and the other group used the alcohol method. Seventy-two newborns, including premature newborns, in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a university-affiliated hospital in South Korea were enrolled from August 2011 to May 2012. Hydration, temperature, pH, and floras were measured daily until the cords fell off. The results showed no difference between the groups in hydration, temperature, pH, and the colonization of floras, but cord detachment in the alcohol group took 2 days longer (12.8 [5.7] days) than in the water group (10.9 [4.1] days). Our findings suggest that the clean-and-dry method of cord care, which uses water, could be sufficient, possibly even better than alcohol in maintaining the physiologic surface milieu of the cord area with less chance of infection and manipulation in NICUs with optimal infection control.

Umbilical cord separation time, predictors and healing complications in newborns with dry care

“…In accordance with our findings on how often the umbilical cord gets wet, results obtained by other authors show that the umbilical cord takes less time to separate when it is dryer [37]. However, others researchers have reported longer cord separation times when the umbilical cord got wet twice a day [15,35], or three times a day [38].…”

Hydration and pH of the Stratum Corneum in High-risk Newborns in the First 2 Weeks of Life

“…Moreover, AM formation was not related to clinical or exogenous features such as SCH, delivery type, phototherapy, or an open versus closed environment. While we reported a positive correlation between pH and SCH in a previous study [17], in the present study, we did not identify a significant difference in SCH depending on AM formation, despite a tendency for AM formation to be associated with SCH in an analysis adjusted for gestational group, delivery type, phototherapy, and environment type as covariates. One possible explanation for not observing a relationship between SCH and AM might be the small number of subjects in the AM-yes group, leading to unequal variance between groups with an impact on statistical robustness.…”