LNSLNS

Professor Dissemond is correct in that neither the study nor the discussion focused on adhesives. For this reason, the conclusion should not be generalized to all “absorbent” wound dressings. In future studies, the adhesives of wound dressings should certainly be considered.

Professor Wenderlein prompts us to mention that we actually discussed such postoperative wound treatments in our study group. But the basic requirement for such an approach would be a fundamental re-think on the part of patients and doctors. For example, in order to gain ethics approval for such a comparative study, valid arguments would be required—ideally based on comparative studies with a high evidence level. But these studies have not been conducted to date. We agree unreservedly with his conclusion.

DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0428

On behalf of the authors

Dr. med. Jan Bredow

Fachzentrum für Rücken & Wirbelsäule

Schön Klinik Düsseldorf SE & Co. KG

jbredow@schoen-kliniken.de

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Bredow received reimbursement of congress fees and travel expenses as well as study support from Mölnlycke (free supply of Mepilex Border Post-Op for the intervention group).

1.
Bredow J, Hoffmann K, Oppermann J, Hellmich M, Eysel P, Zarghooni K: Evaluation of absorbent versus conventional wound dressing—a randomized controlled study in orthopedic surgery. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018; 115: 213–9 VOLLTEXT
1.Bredow J, Hoffmann K, Oppermann J, Hellmich M, Eysel P, Zarghooni K: Evaluation of absorbent versus conventional wound dressing—a randomized controlled study in orthopedic surgery. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018; 115: 213–9 VOLLTEXT

Info

Specialities