Raywat ChunhasuwankulNatthida OwattanapanichLertpong SomcharitHarutai PantheepoSujira PrasanratAnusak YiengpruksawanFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityThe Valley Hospital2019-08-232019-08-232018-09-01Siriraj Medical Journal. Vol.70, No.5 (2018), 377-381222880822-s2.0-85057561453https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/46378© 2018 Siriraj Medical Journal. Objective: To evaluate outcome differences between DD and SD in 1) wound infection rates, 2) patients' satisfaction according to the wound care and cost of treatment. Methods: A single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial of 350 traumatic-wound patients was conducted. Only adult traumatic wounds without a fracture, tendon injury and neurovascular injury were included. The patients were randomized into two groups: daily dressing (DD) and scheduled dressing (SD) groups. DD group patients received daily wound dressing changes, while those in SD group typically had dressing changed on days 3, 7 and one other scheduled day. Analyzed data included patients' demographics, clinical parameters, patient's satisfaction according to wound treatment and cost. Results: Total wound infection rate was 1.2%. Although the incidence of wound infection in the SD group was lower than that of the DD group (0% vs 2.4%), statistically it was not significant (p=0.06). Patients' satisfaction level was also not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The study showed clinical non-inferiority of SD compared to DD while offering saving benefits both in time and cost. Therefore, SD can be substituted for DD for traumatic wound care after primary repair.Mahidol UniversityMedicineArticleSCOPUS10.14456/smj.2018.60