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...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |