Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Pin site care for preventing infections associated with external bone fixators and pins

  1. Anne Lethaby1,*,
  2. Jenny Temple2,
  3. Julie Santy-Tomlinson3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Wounds Group

Published Online: 3 DEC 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004551.pub3


How to Cite

Lethaby A, Temple J, Santy-Tomlinson J. Pin site care for preventing infections associated with external bone fixators and pins. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD004551. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004551.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Auckland, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Auckland, New Zealand

  2. 2

    University of Plymouth, Faculty of Health & Social Work, Drake Circus, Plymouth, UK

  3. 3

    University of Hull, Faculty of Health & Social Care, Hull, East Yorkshire, UK

*Anne Lethaby, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. a.lethaby@auckland.ac.nz.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 3 DEC 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Cleansing compared with no cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rates.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Sterile antiseptic cleansing solution compared with sterile non-antiseptic cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rate.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non-sterile cleansing, Outcome 1 Minor infection.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non-sterile cleansing, Outcome 2 Major infection.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Dressing compared with no dressing, Outcome 1 Successful condition of soft tissue interface.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 1 Antibiotics needed.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 2 Clinical signs of infection.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 3 Superficial infection.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 4 Infection rate xeroform vs gauze or sponge.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 5 Any infection sulfadiazine vs dry dressing.