Comparison of safety and efficacy of papaya dressing with hydrogen peroxide solution on wound bed preparation in patients with wound gape
- PMID: 23248412
- PMCID: PMC3523510
- DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.103302
Comparison of safety and efficacy of papaya dressing with hydrogen peroxide solution on wound bed preparation in patients with wound gape
Abstract
Objective: Indian papaya or Carica papaya is known to have de-sloughing and wound-healing properties due to the presence of protease enzymes. The present study was done to compare the efficacy and safety of papaya dressing with hydrogen peroxide solution for preparation of wound bed in patients of postoperative wound gape.
Materials and methods: A randomized, open-labeled interventional study was carried out over a period of 8 months at a tertiary care hospital on post-caesarean section patients with wound gape. The efficacy parameters studied were duration of time required to induce development of healthy granulation tissue and total duration of hospitalization. Safety parameters studied were adverse effects reported by patients and development of hypersensitivity reaction.
Results: A total of 64 patients were enrolled, of which 32 patients received hydrogen peroxide dressing and 31 patients received papaya dressing (one patient withdrew after randomization). Time required to induce the development of healthy granulation tissue and total duration of hospitalization were 6.2±1.6 days vs 2.5±0.5 days and 19.2±5.8 days vs 12.92±4.6 days in papaya and hydrogen peroxide dressing groups, respectively. Both primary efficacy parameters were significantly shorter in papaya dressing group. The incidence of adverse effects like local irritation and itching were comparable in both groups and the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Papaya dressing is more efficacious and equally safe as compared to hydrogen peroxide dressing when used for wound bed preparation in patients with postoperative wound gape.
Keywords: Hydrogen peroxide; papaya; wound debridement; wound gape.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures




References
-
- Pavlidis TE, Galatianos IN, Papaziogas BT, Lazaridis CN, Atmatzidis KS, Makris JG, et al. Complete dehiscence of the abdominal wound and incriminating factors. Eur J Surg. 2001;167:351–4. - PubMed
-
- Waqar SH, Malik ZI, Razzaq A, Abdullah MT, Shaima A, Zahid MA. Frequency and risk factors for wound dehiscence/burst abdomen in midline laparotomies. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2005;17:70–3. - PubMed
-
- Mazilu O, Grigoraş D, Cnejevici S, Dabelea CT, Prundeanu H, Stef D, et al. Postoperative complete abdominal dehiscence: Risk factors and clinical correlations. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2009;104:419–23. - PubMed
-
- Fleischer GM, Rennert A, Rühmer M. Infected abdominal wall and burst abdomen. Chirurg. 2000;71:754–62. - PubMed
-
- Ousey K, McIntosh C. Understanding wound bed preparation and wound debridement. (S24, S26).Br J Community Nurs. 2010;15:S22. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical