Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 May 7;5(5):CD006214.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub5.

Debridement for surgical wounds

Fiona Smith  1 , Jayne Donaldson  1 , Tamara Brown  2   3
Affiliations
Review

Debridement for surgical wounds

Fiona Smith et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue may expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods of debridement available, but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds.

Search methods: In October 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. To identify additional studies, we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, date of publication, or study setting.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with a surgical wound that required debridement, and reported time to complete wound debridement or time to wound healing, or both.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment using the RoB 1 tool, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.

Main results: In this fourth update, we identified one additional study for inclusion. The review now includes six studies, with 265 participants, aged three to 91 years. Five studies were published between 1979 and 1990 and one published in 2014. The studies were carried out in hospital settings in China, Denmark, Belgium, and the UK. Six studies provided six comparisons. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, it was not appropriate to conduct meta-analyses. Four studies evaluated the effectiveness of dextranomer beads/paste; however, each study used a different comparator (Eusol-soaked dressings, 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone, 0.1% chloramine-soaked packs, and silicone foam elastomer dressing). One study compared streptokinase/streptodornase with saline-soaked dressings, and one compared endoscopic surgical debridement with conventional 'open' surgical debridement. Five studies reported time to complete debridement (reported as time to a clean wound bed) and three reported time to complete healing. One study reported effect estimates (surgical debridement via endoscopy versus surgical debridement) for time to a clean wound bed and time to complete wound healing, and it was possible to calculate effect estimates for one other study (dextranomer paste versus silicone foam elastomer) for time to complete wound healing. For the other four studies that did not report effect estimates, it was not possible to calculate time to a clean wound bed or time to complete wound healing due to missing variance and participant exclusions. None of the included studies reported outcomes pertaining to proportion of wounds completely healed, rate of reduction in wound size, rate of infection, or quality of life. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Dextranomer paste/beads (autolytic debridement) compared with four different comparators Four studies compared dextranomer paste or beads with Eusol-soaked gauze (20 participants), 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone (40 participants), 0.1% chloramine-soaked dressings (28 participants), or silicone foam elastomer (50 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no clear difference in time to a clean wound bed between dextranomer beads and Eusol gauze. The study did not report adverse events. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed between dextranomer paste and 10% aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone gauze. There was low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. There may be a difference in time until the wounds were clinically clean and time to complete wound healing between dextranomer paste and 0.1% chloramine favouring 0.1% chloramine, but we are very uncertain. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to complete healing between dextranomer beads and silicone foam elastomer. The study did not report adverse events. Streptokinase/streptodornase solution (enzymatic) compared with saline-soaked dressings One study (21 participants) compared enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed or secondary suture between streptokinase/streptodornase and saline-soaked dressings. There is very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in deaths and serious adverse events. Surgical debridement via endoscopic ('keyhole') surgery compared with surgical debridement by 'open' surgery (the wound is opened using a scalpel) One study (106 participants) reported time to complete wound healing and time to a clean wound bed. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be a reduction in time to complete wound healing and very low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in time to a clean wound bed with surgical debridement via endoscopy compared to 'open' surgical debridement. The study did not report adverse events. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty for all outcomes. Five included studies were published before 1991 and investigated treatments that are no longer available. Worldwide production of dextranomer products has been discontinued, except for dextranomer paste, which is currently only available in South Africa. Furthermore, Eusol, used in one study as the comparator to dextranomer, is rarely used due to risk of harmful effects on healthy tissue and the enzymatic agent streptokinase/streptodornase is no longer available worldwide.

Authors' conclusions: Evidence for the effects of different methods of debridement on complete wound debridement and healing of surgical wounds remains unclear. Adequately powered, methodologically robust RCTs evaluating contemporary debridement interventions for surgical wounds are needed to guide clinical decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

FS: none.

JD: none.

TB: none.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram (2021 update).
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Dextranomer beads versus elastomer foam, Outcome 1: Mean time to complete healing (days)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Goode 1979 {published data only}
    1. Goode AW, Glazer G, Ellis BW. The cost effectiveness of dextranomer and Eusol in the treatment of infected surgical wounds. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1979;33(11-2):325-6. - PubMed
Michiels 1990 {published data only}
    1. Michiels I, Christiaens MR. Dextranomer (Debrisan) paste in post-operative wounds: a controlled study. Clinical Trials Journal 1990;27(4):283-90. - PubMed
Poulson 1983 {published data only}
    1. Poulson J, Kristensen VN, Brygger HE, Delikaris P. Treatment of infected surgical wounds with Varidase. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica 1983;149(3):245-8. - PubMed
Sondergaard 1982 {published data only}
    1. Sondergaard JO, Galatius H. Debrisan compared with chloramine packs in the treatment of postoperative infected wounds [Debrisan versus kloramin-mecheved postoperative inficerede cikatricer]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 1982;144(21):1523-5. - PubMed
Wang 2014 {published data only}
    1. Wang H, Dou X, Hu X, Yu J, Wang S. Effectiveness and safety of endoscopy for treatment of surgical site infection: a randomised control trial. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 2014;8:1727-30. [DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.2028] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Young 1982 {published data only}
    1. Young HL, Wheeler MH. Report of the prospective trial of dextranomer beads (Debrisan) and silicone foam elastomer (silastic dressings in surgical wounds). British Journal of Surgery 1982;69(1):33-4. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Acosta 2013 {published data only}
    1. Acosta S, Monsen C, Dencker M. Clinical outcome and microvascular blood flow in VAC and Sorbalgon treated peri-vascular infected wounds in the groin after vascular surgery – an early interim analysis. International Wound Journal 2013;10(4):377-82. - PMC - PubMed
Allie 2004 {published data only}
    1. Allie DE, Herbert CJ, Lirtzman MD, Wyatt CH, Keller VA, Souther SM, et al. Novel treatment strategy for leg and sternal wound complications after coronary graft surgery: bioengineered Apligraf. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2004;78(2):673-8. - PubMed
Bethell 2003 {published data only}
    1. Bethell E. Why gauze dressings should not be the first choice to manage acute surgical cavity wounds. Journal of Wound Care 2003;12(6):237-9. - PubMed
Cannavo 1998 {published data only}
    1. Cannavo M, Fairbrother G, Owen D, Ingle J, Lumley T. A comparison of dressings in the management of surgical abdominal wounds. Journal of Wound Care 1998;7(2):57-62. - PubMed
Capasso 2003 {published data only}
    1. Capasso VA, Munro BH. The cost and efficacy of two wound treatments. AORN Journal 2003;77(5):984-1004. - PubMed
Cassino 2013 {published data only}
    1. Cassino R, Ippolito AM. Aminoacid gel versus hydrogel: which is the quicker debrider? Acta Vulnologica 2013;11(4):149-59.
Cohn 2004 {published data only}
    1. Cohn SM, Lopez PP, Brown M, Namias N, Jackowskl J, Li P, et al. Open surgical wounds: how does Aquacel compare with wet-to-dry gauze. Journal of Wound Care 2004;13(1):10-2. - PubMed
De Feo 2001 {published data only}
    1. De Feo M, De Sante LS, Ramano G, Renzulli A, Corter AD, Utili R, et al. Treatment of recurrent staphylococcal mediastinitis: still a controversial issue. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2001;75(2):538-42. - PubMed
De Feo 2003 {published data only}
    1. De Feo M, Gregorio R, Corter AD, Marra C, Amarelli C, Renzulli A, et al. Deep sternal wound infection: the role of early debridement surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2003;19(6):811-6. - PubMed
Doughty 2005 {published data only}
    1. Doughty DB. Preventing and managing surgical wound dehiscence. Advances in Skin and Wound Care 2005;18(6):319-22. - PubMed
Douville 2004 {published data only}
    1. Douville EC, Asaph JW, Dworkin RJ, Handy JR, Canepa CS, Grunkemeier GL, et al. Sternal preservation: a better way to treat most sternal wound complications after cardiac surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2004;78(5):1659-64. - PubMed
Edwards 1967 {published data only}
    1. Edwards RH, Killen DA. Comparison of two methods of management of clean surgical wounds. JAMA 1967;201(1):137-8. - PubMed
Foster 2000 {published data only}
    1. Foster L, Moore P, Clark S. Comparison of hydrofibre and alginate dressings on open acute surgical wounds. Journal of Wound Care 2000;9(9):442-5. - PubMed
Gliantsev 1996 {published data only}
    1. Gliantsev SO, Savvina TV. Comparative evaluation of activity of proteolytic enzymes used in surgery. Biulleten Eksperimentalnoi Biologii 1996;121(6):16-20. - PubMed
Gottrup 2005 {published data only}
    1. Gottrup F. The significance of dressings and topical agents in secondary healing [Betydningen af bandage og lokale midler ved sekundaert helede kirurgiske sar]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 2005;167(47):4473-6. - PubMed
Granick 2006 {published data only}
    1. Granick MS, Posnett J, Jacoby M, Noruthun S, Ganchi PA, Datiashvili RO. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a high-powered parallel waterjet for wound debridement. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2006;14(4):394-7. - PubMed
Guest 2005 {published data only}
    1. Guest JF, Ruiz FJ. Modelling the cost implications of using carboxymethylcellulose dressing compared with gauze in the management of surgical wound healing by secondary intention in the US and UK. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2005;21(2):94-101. - PubMed
Kim 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kim SW, Lee JH, Soe BF, Rhie JW. Prospective RCT comparing two hydrocolloid dressings in acute trauma wounds in South Korea. Journal of Wound Care 2013;22(4):208-13. - PubMed
Kuleshov 1992 {published data only}
    1. Kuleshov SE, Kaem RI. The use of carbon dioxide laser in acute surgical infection of the soft tissues. Khirurgiia Moskva 1992;2:94-101. - PubMed
Ma 2014 {published data only}
    1. Ma WJ, Zhou Y, Xu RH, Shrestha A, Li FY, Yang Q, et al. Healing time after hepatobiliary surgery treated by needle-free incision suture closure. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2014;20(42):15815-9. - PMC - PubMed
Moore 2000 {published data only}
    1. Moore PJ, Foster L. Cost benefits of two dressings in the management of surgical wounds. British Journal of Nursing 2000;9(17):1128-32. - PubMed
Moore 2001 {published data only}
    1. Moore OA, Smith LA, Campbell F, Seers K, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Systematic review of the use of honey as a wound dressing. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2001;1(2):2. - PMC - PubMed
Moues 2004 {published data only}
    1. Moues CM, Vos MC, den Bemd GJ, Stijnen T, Hovius SE. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomised trial. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2004;12(1):11-7. - PubMed
Mulder 1995 {published data only}
    1. Mulder GD. Evaluation of three nonwoven sponges in the debridement of chronic wounds. Ostomy/Wound Management 1995;41(3):62-7. - PubMed
NCT01237392 {published data only}
    1. NCT01237392. Ultrasonic wound debridement vs standard sharp debridement. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01237392 (first received 9 November 2010).
NCT02482948 {published data only}
    1. NCT02482948. MEDIHONEY® Gel versus collagenase for wound debridement. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02482948 (first received 26 June 2015).
Oosthuizen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Oosthuizen B, Mole T, Martin R, Myburgh JG. Comparison of standard surgical debridement versus VERSAJET PlusTM Hyrdrosurgery system in the treatment of open tibia fractures: a prospective open label randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Burn Trauma 2014;4(2):53-8. - PMC - PubMed
Rand 1998 {published data only}
    1. Rand RP, Cochran RP, Aziz S, Hofer BO, Allen MD, Verrier ED, et al. Prospective trial of catheter irrigation and muscle flaps for sternal wound infection. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1998;65(4):1046-9. - PubMed
Shoham 2021 {published data only}
    1. Shoham Y, Shapira E, Haik J, Harats M, Egozi S, Robinson D, et al. Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement of chronic wounds: results of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2021;29:899-907. [DOI: DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12958] - PubMed
Soul 1978 {published data only}
    1. Soul JA. A trial of Debrisan in the cleansing of infected surgical wounds. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1978;32(6):172-3. - PubMed
Tewarie 2013 {published data only}
    1. Tewarie L, Goetzenich A, Hatam N, Holtmannspötter O, Kuschel T, Autschbach R, et al. Ultrasonic debridement of deep surgical wound infection and mediastinitis after sternotomy. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon 2013;61:OP242. [DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1332481] - DOI
Tolstykh 1987 {published data only}
    1. Tolstykh PI, Glostishchev VK, Khanin AG, Aboyants RK, Yusuf MY, Antsyshkin VA. The effect of biologically active dressings of wounds upon the development of the wound process. Vestnivk Khirurgh IM I I Grekova 1987;138(3):57-60. - PubMed
Williams 1995 {published data only}
    1. Williams P, Howells RE, Miller E, Foster ME. A comparison of two alginate dressings used in surgical wounds. Journal of Wound Care 1995;4(4):170-2. - PubMed
Yang 2012 {published data only}
    1. Yang X, Zhou HF, Zhang SM, Wang YZ, Ye N, Wang Y, et al. HydrofibreTM dressing with silver in wound healing after surgery for anal fistula. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research 2012;16(47):8835-41.
Zeitani 2004 {published data only}
    1. Zeitani J, Bertoldo F, Bassano C, Penta de Peppo A, Pellegrino AP, El Fakhri FM, et al. Superficial wound dehiscence after median sternotomy: surgical treatment versus secondary wound healing. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2004;77(2):672-5. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

NCT03798041 {published data only}
    1. NCT03798041. Early debridement within 24 hours after surgery for wound healing of abdominal incision. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT03798041 (first received 9 January 2019).
NCT03880331 {published data only}
    1. NCT03880331. Comparing outcomes of secondary intention wound care methods. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT03880331 (first received 19 March 2019).

Additional references

Anderson 2006
    1. Anderson I. Debridement methods in wound care. Nursing Standard 2006;20(24):65-72. - PubMed
Atkin 2020
    1. Atkin L, Acton C, Edmonds M, Fumarola S, Geraghty J, McIntosh C, et al. The role of larval debridement therapy in the management of lower limb wounds. www.wounds-uk.com/resources/details/the-role-of-larval-debridement-thera... (accessed 14 October 2022).
Bahr 2011
    1. Bahr S, Mustafi N, Hättig P, Piatkowski A, Mosti G, Reimann K, et al. Clinical efficacy of a new monofilament fibre-containing wound debridement product. Journal of Wound Care 2011;20(5):242-8. - PubMed
Berríos‐Torres 2017
    1. Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, Leas B, Stone EC, Kelz RR, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. JAMA Surgery 2017;152:784-91. [DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904] - DOI - PubMed
Bradley 2001
    1. Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T. The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2001;3(3 (17 Pt 1)):1-78. [DOI: 10.3310/hta3171] - DOI - PubMed
Brown 2015
    1. Brown A. Phases of the wound healing process. Nursing Times 2015;111(46):12-3. - PubMed
Callaghan 2014
    1. Callaghan R. Treating difficult-to-debride wounds using a manuka honey dressing: a case study evaluation. Wounds UK 2014;10(2):104-9.
Cornell 2010
    1. Cornell RS, Meyr AJ, Steinberg JS, Attinger CE. Debridement of the noninfected surgical wound. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2010;52(3 Suppl):31-6s. - PubMed
Cornwell 2010
    1. Cornwell P, Arnold-Lang M, Bernahl Barss S, Varnado MF. The use of Dakin's Solution in chronic wounds. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 2010;37(1):94-104. [DOI: 10.1097/WON.06013e3181c78874] - DOI - PubMed
Deeks 2021
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
ECDC 2023
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Healthcare-associated infections: surgical site infections. Annual Epidemiological Report for 2018-2023 2023:1-19.
EWMA 2013
    1. European Wound Management Association. Debridement: an updated overview and clarification of the principle role of debridement. Journal of Wound Care 2013;22(3):S1-49. - PubMed
Fletcher 2020
    1. Fletcher J, Probst A. Managing dry wounds in clinical practice: challenges and solutions. Wounds International 2020;11(2):47-52.
Glanville 2019
    1. Glanville J, Dooley G, Wisniewski S, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Development of a search filter to identify reports of controlled clinical trials within CINAHL Plus. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2019;36(1):73-90. - PubMed
GRADE 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editor(s). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updated October 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available from gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
Gray 2009
    1. Gray D, White R, Cooper P, Kingsley T, Young T. An introduction to applied wound management and its use in the assessment of wounds. Wounds UK 2009;5(4):4-9.
Gray 2011
    1. Gray D, Acton C, Chadwick P, Fumarola S, Leaper D, Morris C, et al. Consensus guidelines for the use of debridement techniques in the UK. Wounds UK 2011;7(1):77-84.
Haemmerle 2011
    1. Haemmerle G, Duellii H, Abel M, Strohal R. The wound debrider: a new monofilament fibre technology. British Journal of Nursing 2011;20(6):S35-42. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.
Higgins 2021
    1. Higgins JP, Eldridge S, Li T. Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
IWII 2016
    1. International Wound Infection Institute (IWII). Wound infection in clinical practice. eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/30637/1/iwii-consensus_final-web.pdf (accessed 14 October 2022).
Janis 2014
    1. Janis J, Harrison B. Wound healing: part II. Clinical applications. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014;133(3):383-92e. - PubMed
Lantis 2017
    1. Lantis J, Paredes J. Permissive maintenance debridement – the role of enzymatic debridement in chronic wound care. Wounds International 2017;8(2):7-13.
Leak 2012
    1. Leak K. How to… Ten top tips for wound debridement. Wounds International 2012;2(2):21-3.
Lefebvre 2021
    1. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, TetzlaF J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
Madhok 2013
    1. Madhok BM, Vowden K, Vowden P. New techniques for wound debridement. International Wound Journal 2013;10:247-51. - PMC - PubMed
McFarland 2014
    1. McFarland A, Smith F. Wound debridement: a clinical update. Nursing Standard 2014;28(52):51-8. - PubMed
Moore 2012
    1. Moore Z. The important role of debridement in wound bed preparation. Wounds International 2012;3(2):19-23.
NICE 2011
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The MIST Therapy system for the promotion of wound healing. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg5/documents/mist-therapy-system-for-the-prom... (accessed prior to 12 April 2024).
NICE 2019
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The Debrisoft monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. guidance.nice.org.uk/mtg17 (accessed 14 October 2022).
NICE 2020
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng125 (accessed prior to 12 April 2024).
Norman 2016
    1. Norman G, Dumville JC, Mohapatra DP, Owens GL, Crosbie EJ. Antibiotics and antiseptics for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. Art. No: CD011712. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011712.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ousey 2021
    1. Ousey K, Schofield A. Made easy: wound bed preparation. www.wounds-uk.com/download/resource/8995 (accessed prior to 12 April 2024).
Ovens 2018
    1. Ovens L, Irving S. Advances in wound cleansing: an integrated approach. Wounds UK 2018;14(1):58-63.
Page 2021
    1. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Sterne JA. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
Prince 2013
    1. Prince B, Young T. Debridement consensus: recommendations for practice. Wound Essentials 2013;8(1):71-6.
Review Manager 2020 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.4. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.
Sainsbury 2009
    1. Sainsbury DC. Evaluation of the quality and cost-effectiveness of Versajet hydrosurgery. International Wound Journal 2009;6(1):24-9. - PMC - PubMed
Schultz 2003
    1. Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Harding K, et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2003;11(Suppl 1):S1-28. - PubMed
Schünemann 2021a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Santesso N, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
Schünemann 2021b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, et al. Chapter 14: Completing 'Summary of findings' tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.2.
Seidelman 2023
    1. Seidelman JL, Mantyh CR, Anderson DJ. Surgical site infection prevention: a review. JAMA 2023;329:244-52. [DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.24075] - DOI - PubMed
Spear 2010
    1. Spear M. The necessity of wound debridement. Plastic Surgical Nursing 2010;30(1):54-6. - PubMed
Spruce 2016
    1. Spruce P, Bullough L, Johnson S, O'Brien D. Introducing HydroClean® plus for wound-bed preparation: a case series. Wounds International 2016;7(1):26-32.
Tao 2012
    1. Tao H, Butler JP, Litrell T. The role of whirlpool in wound care. Journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists 2012;4(1):7-12. - PMC - PubMed
Vowden 2011
    1. Vowden K, Vowden P. Debridement made easy. Wounds UK 2011;7(4):1-4.
Wounds UK 2013
    1. Wounds UK. Best Practice Statement: the Use of Topical Antimicrobial Agents in Wound Management. 3rd edition. London (UK): Wounds UK, 2013.
WUWHS 2008
    1. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Principles of best practice: wound infection in clinical practice. An international consensus. www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/wound-infection-clinical-p... (accessed prior to 12 April 2024).
WUWHS 2018
    1. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Surgical wound dehiscence: improving prevention and outcomes. www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/surgical-wound-dehiscence-... (accessed 14 October 2022).
WUWHS 2019
    1. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). WUWHS consensus document: wound exudate, effective assessment and management. www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/wuwhs-consensus-document-w... (accessed 14 October 2022).

References to other published versions of this review

Dryburgh 2006
    1. Dryburgh N, Donaldson J, Mitchell M, Smith F. Debridement for surgical wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No: CD006214. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214] - DOI - PubMed
Dryburgh 2008
    1. Dryburgh N, Smith F, Donaldson J, Mitchell M. Debridement for surgical wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No: CD006214. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Smith 2011
    1. Smith F, Dryburgh N, Donaldson J, Mitchell M. Debridement for surgical wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 5. Art. No: CD006214. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Smith 2013
    1. Smith F, Dryburgh N, Donaldson J, Mitchell M. Debridement for surgical wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No: CD006214. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006214.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources