Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation

Abstract Background The need for reoperation or wound infection treatments between pulsatile and gravity irrigation are statistically equivalent, however, it is unclear which method maximizes operative efficiency and expeditious irrigation. In this study we set out to determine the differences in ir...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lily R. Mundy, Mark J. Gage, Richard S. Yoon, Frank A. Liporace
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2017-03-01
Series:Patient Safety in Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13037-017-0124-2
id doaj-ad9e7a369aaa4e588e30959b44970deb
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ad9e7a369aaa4e588e30959b44970deb2020-11-24T21:27:20ZengBMCPatient Safety in Surgery1754-94932017-03-011111410.1186/s13037-017-0124-2Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigationLily R. Mundy0Mark J. Gage1Richard S. Yoon2Frank A. Liporace3Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Duke UniversitySection of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke UnivsersityDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jersey City Medical Center – RWJBarnabas HealthDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jersey City Medical Center – RWJBarnabas HealthAbstract Background The need for reoperation or wound infection treatments between pulsatile and gravity irrigation are statistically equivalent, however, it is unclear which method maximizes operative efficiency and expeditious irrigation. In this study we set out to determine the differences in irrigation rate between these various treatment methods. Methods This was an ex-vivo experimental laboratory study not involving human subjects. Irrigation rates were tested based on the time in seconds required to empty a three-liter bag of normal saline hanging at either 6 or 9 ft. Three forms of irrigation were tested: gravity irrigation (GI6, GI9), low-pressure pulsatile irrigation (LP6, LP9) and high-pressure pulsatile irrigation. One-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test were used to compare rates based on height and form of irrigation. Results Significant differences in irrigation rates were noted at 6 ft between all three forms of irrigation with gravity irrigation the fastest followed by high-pressure and low-pressure pulsatile irrigation (GI6, mean 142 s ± 3.2; HP6, mean 189 s ± 10.2; LP6, mean 323 s ± 22.5; p < 0.001). This difference was also found at 9 ft (GI9, mean 114 s ± 1.5; HP9, mean 186 s ± 10.5; LP9, mean 347 s ± 3.5; p < 0.001). Gravity irrigation was significantly faster (p < 0.001) at an increased height, whereas the high and low-pressure irrigation rates were unaffected by height. List price comparison found pulsatile irrigation to cost approximately 3.3 times more than gravity lavage. Conclusions Gravity irrigation provided the most rapid rate of irrigation tested, regardless of the height. With existing literature demonstrating equivalent clinical outcomes between methods, gravity lavage offers a faster and potentially more cost-effective form of irrigation.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13037-017-0124-2Irrigation and debridementPulsatile lavageGravity lavageOpen fracturePulse lavage
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lily R. Mundy
Mark J. Gage
Richard S. Yoon
Frank A. Liporace
spellingShingle Lily R. Mundy
Mark J. Gage
Richard S. Yoon
Frank A. Liporace
Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
Patient Safety in Surgery
Irrigation and debridement
Pulsatile lavage
Gravity lavage
Open fracture
Pulse lavage
author_facet Lily R. Mundy
Mark J. Gage
Richard S. Yoon
Frank A. Liporace
author_sort Lily R. Mundy
title Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
title_short Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
title_full Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
title_fullStr Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an Ex-vivo experimental investigation
title_sort comparing the speed of irrigation between pulsatile lavage versus gravity irrigation: an ex-vivo experimental investigation
publisher BMC
series Patient Safety in Surgery
issn 1754-9493
publishDate 2017-03-01
description Abstract Background The need for reoperation or wound infection treatments between pulsatile and gravity irrigation are statistically equivalent, however, it is unclear which method maximizes operative efficiency and expeditious irrigation. In this study we set out to determine the differences in irrigation rate between these various treatment methods. Methods This was an ex-vivo experimental laboratory study not involving human subjects. Irrigation rates were tested based on the time in seconds required to empty a three-liter bag of normal saline hanging at either 6 or 9 ft. Three forms of irrigation were tested: gravity irrigation (GI6, GI9), low-pressure pulsatile irrigation (LP6, LP9) and high-pressure pulsatile irrigation. One-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test were used to compare rates based on height and form of irrigation. Results Significant differences in irrigation rates were noted at 6 ft between all three forms of irrigation with gravity irrigation the fastest followed by high-pressure and low-pressure pulsatile irrigation (GI6, mean 142 s ± 3.2; HP6, mean 189 s ± 10.2; LP6, mean 323 s ± 22.5; p < 0.001). This difference was also found at 9 ft (GI9, mean 114 s ± 1.5; HP9, mean 186 s ± 10.5; LP9, mean 347 s ± 3.5; p < 0.001). Gravity irrigation was significantly faster (p < 0.001) at an increased height, whereas the high and low-pressure irrigation rates were unaffected by height. List price comparison found pulsatile irrigation to cost approximately 3.3 times more than gravity lavage. Conclusions Gravity irrigation provided the most rapid rate of irrigation tested, regardless of the height. With existing literature demonstrating equivalent clinical outcomes between methods, gravity lavage offers a faster and potentially more cost-effective form of irrigation.
topic Irrigation and debridement
Pulsatile lavage
Gravity lavage
Open fracture
Pulse lavage
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13037-017-0124-2
work_keys_str_mv AT lilyrmundy comparingthespeedofirrigationbetweenpulsatilelavageversusgravityirrigationanexvivoexperimentalinvestigation
AT markjgage comparingthespeedofirrigationbetweenpulsatilelavageversusgravityirrigationanexvivoexperimentalinvestigation
AT richardsyoon comparingthespeedofirrigationbetweenpulsatilelavageversusgravityirrigationanexvivoexperimentalinvestigation
AT frankaliporace comparingthespeedofirrigationbetweenpulsatilelavageversusgravityirrigationanexvivoexperimentalinvestigation
_version_ 1725975310319484928