title: Effects of occlusive and conventional gauze dressings on incisional healing after abdominal operations.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the effect of occlusive (Comfeel) and conventional (Mepore) dressings on the healing of incisional wounds after abdominal operations.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective randomised study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Laboratory and teaching hospital, Denmark.
  
  
  METHODS
  73 patients who underwent clean operations requiring incisions longer than 5 cm between August 1993 and August 1995 were randomised to have their wounds dressed with either Comfeel or Mepore.
  
  
  METHODS
  Comfeel was left on until the sutures were removed, and Mepore was removed 2 days postoperatively.
  
  
  METHODS
  Infection, adherence, leakage, and cosmetic appearance three months later.
  
  
  RESULTS
  36 patients were randomised to have Comfeel and 37 to have Mepore. 29 patients were withdrawn from the study (20 having Mepore and 9 having Comfeel) leaving 26, and 17 for analysis, respectively. Wound infections developed in 1 patient in the Comfeel group and 5 in the Mepores group (p = 0.2). There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed, the incidence of leakage, or loosening of the dressing from the skin. Comfeel adhered securely to the skin and remained more or less transparent until sutures were removed. It remained totally transparent in 23 (64%), and no dressing became totally opaque. There were no differences in cosmetic appearance after three months. We had the impression that patients who had Comfeel were more comfortable and found it easier to mobilise and carry out their daily activities.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Occlusive dressings stay in place and stay transparent, and do not increase the risk of wound infection. They may even be more comfortable. they are a reasonable alternative to conventional dressings.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Denmark.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Holm
authors.forename: J S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Petersen
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Grønboek
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Gottrup
mesh_terms: D000005:Abdomen / Q000601:surgery*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001458:Bandages; D002921:Cicatrix / Q000209:etiology; D003102:Colloids; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009779:Occlusive Dressings; D009930:Organic Chemicals; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative / Q000009:adverse effects; D013529:Surgical Wound Dehiscence; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology*
chemical_list: D003102:Colloids; D009930:Organic Chemicals; C093472:comfeel