Analysis of the Effectiveness of Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage in Treating Infectious Skin Injuries

Analysis of the Effectiveness of Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage in Treating Infectious Skin Injuries | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Analysis of the Effectiveness of Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage in Treating Infectious Skin Injuries Nie Yan, Geng Quanli, Jin Shuang, Liu Zhi, Ma Xu, Ye Jingsheng This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract 【Abstract】Objective :This study evaluates and compares the clinical efficacy of phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in the treatment of infected skin injuries with traditional treatment methods, aiming to provide a reference framework for clinical practice.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 48 patients with infected skin injuries treated at Yanqing Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine from January to December 2023. Patients were randomly divided into two groups based on their treatment methods: the control group (24 cases) underwent conventional dressing changes, while the observation group (24 cases) received wound debridement and drainage. Clinical characteristics were documented and analyzed statistically. Comparisons between the two groups were made regarding wound healing time, infection index conditions, pain levels, scar formation, and patient satisfaction.Results: The wound healing time in the debridement and drainage group was significantly shorter compared to the conventional dressing change group, with improved control over infection indicators (P<0.05). Photographic records were captured on the third and seventh days after treatment for disease progression assessments, and interviews with Qingqiang complemented this evaluation (P<0.05). The Early Qingqiang group demonstrated more severe disease progression compared to the photography group (P<0.05).Conclusion: Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage proved effective in treating infected skin injuries by significantly shortening wound healing time, controlling infections, alleviating patient pain, minimizing scar formation, and increasing patient satisfaction. This approach exhibits substantial clinical application value. Qingchuan drainage infected wound treatment outcome Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Skin trauma refers to the disruption of skin integrity caused by various external traumatic factors or internal conditions, such as impaired blood supply within the body, which can lead to the loss of normal tissue function. Clinically, common causes include trauma, surgical procedures, diabetes, and other related factors [1] . If left untreated or addressed with inappropriate methods, skin trauma can result in aggravated infections, delayed wound healing, or even systemic infections, posing significant risks to a patient's physical health and overall quality of life [2] . Currently, clinical approaches primarily focus on anti-inflammatory treatments and techniques to promote trauma repair in affected patients [3] . While traditional dressing changes can help control infections to some extent, they often come with drawbacks such as prolonged healing times, noticeable scarring, and limited therapeutic outcomes [4] . Additionally, these methods may increase the patient's physical discomfort. In contrast, the implementation of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage techniques offers a more comprehensive solution. These techniques allow for the thorough removal of necrotic tissue, foreign materials, and bacteria from the wound. In addition, drainage materials are used to expel wound exudates, and the wound is sutured simultaneously, thereby creating optimal conditions for healing. These methods have been widely adopted in the clinical management of chronic wounds. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in treating infected skin trauma, providing valuable insights and references for improving clinical practices in this field. Materials and Methods 1. Data Collection: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 48 patients with infectious skin trauma treated at Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, from January 2023 to December 2023. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the conventional dressing change group (24 cases), comprising 14 males and 10 females, aged 27 to 87 years; and the primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (24 cases), comprising 16 males and 8 females, aged 24 to 83 years. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding gender, age, wound type, wound area, or other general characteristics (P > 0.05), ensuring comparability between them. 2. Inclusion Criteria: 1. Age ≥ 18 years. 2. Diagnosis of infectious skin trauma, with wound areas measuring between 3-20 cm² and injury occurring within 72 hours. Patients and/or their families must fully understand the purpose and method of dressing changes and provide written informed consent. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Wounds involving exposure of major blood vessels or internal organs. 2. Wounds connected to organs via fistulas. 3. Patients with severe dysfunction of vital organs, including the heart, liver, or kidneys, or those with conditions that impair wound healing, such as hematological disorders or malignant tumors. 4. Known allergies to suture materials. --- 3. Dressing changes are performed by the patient's attending physician and specialized wound care nurses. 3.1 Conventional Dressing Change Group: Begin by rinsing the wound with normal saline to remove surface dirt and foreign particles. Disinfect the surrounding skin with iodophor. For wounds with purulent exudate, rinse thoroughly with hydrogen peroxide, followed by normal saline to ensure cleanliness. Select an appropriate dressing based on the condition of the wound, such as petroleum jelly gauze or iodophor gauze. The frequency of dressing changes is determined by the amount of wound exudate and the presence of infection, continuing until the wound fully heals. 3.2 Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Group: Position the patient appropriately to ensure full exposure of the wound. Disinfect the surrounding skin with 0.5% iodophor and place sterile drapes around the area. Rinse the wound with normal saline to remove dirt, foreign matter, and necrotic tissue. For deeper wounds, use hydrogen peroxide to eliminate anaerobic bacteria. Examine the wound thoroughly and ensure complete hemostasis. If signs of infection are present, collect exudate samples for bacterial culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing to guide targeted antibiotic therapy. Prepare a surgical drainage tube with three side holes in its center, positioning it deep within the wound to ensure effective drainage. Close the wound with absorbable sutures or silk thread using intermittent stitching, maintaining moderate spacing to prevent overly tight or loose sutures that could impair blood flow. After suturing, disinfect the wound again with iodophor and cover it with a sterile dressing.Postoperatively, connect one end of the infusion set to a negative pressure suction device and attach the other end to the drainage system. The infusion set should contain normal saline and antibiotics, which are infused at a rate of 40–50 drops per minute. Record the daily input and output of fluids, and change the dressing accordingly. Adjust the infusion rate based on the characteristics and color of the drainage fluid. Criteria for discontinuing irrigation and removing the drainage tube include a significant reduction in drainage volume, a normal fluid color, stable skin temperature, controlled infection, and the absence of significant pain upon palpation of the area.A schematic diagram illustrating the key steps of this Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage procedure (including wound disinfection, debridement, drainage tube placement, suturing, and postoperative negative pressure irrigation) is provided in Figure 1 (Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of Phase I Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Procedures). 4. Observation Indicators （1）. Wound Healing Condition: Evaluate the wound healing process, including the initial wound diameter and measurements on the 3rd, 7th, and 10th days of dressing changes, as well as the total wound healing time. Healing time is defined as the period from the initiation of treatment until complete epithelial coverage is achieved, with no exudate, swelling, pain, or other symptoms present. The percentage of wound healing (%) is calculated as: (Initial Diameter - Current Diameter) / Initial Diameter × 100%*. （2）. Infection Indicators: Record the patient's white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels upon admission and on the 7th day following dressing changes. （3）. Pain Level: Assess the patient's pain levels using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th days after surgery. Pain levels are defined as follows: 0: No pain. 1–3: Mild pain. 4–6: Moderate pain. 7–10: Severe pain. （4）. Scar Formation: One month after wound healing, evaluate scar quality using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), which considers factors such as color, thickness, vascular distribution, and softness. Lower scores reflect better scar formation outcomes. （5）. Patient Satisfaction: Assess patient satisfaction with the treatment outcomes using a questionnaire after wound healing, categorizing responses into three levels: "very satisfied," "satisfied," and "unsatisfied." Satisfaction is calculated as: (Number of Very Satisfied Cases + Number of Satisfied Cases) / Total Number of Cases × 100%. 5. Statistical Analysis: Intergroup differences were assessed using t-tests, with all measured data presented as (X ± S). Statistical evaluations were conducted using SPSS 20.0 software. A p-value of less than 0.05 (P 0.05). However, by day 7 and day 10 of dressing changes, the wounds in the group treated with primary debridement, suturing, and drainage were significantly smaller than those in the conventional dressing change group, with the differences reaching statistical significance (both P < 0.05). Furthermore, the wound healing time in the primary debridement, suturing, and drainage group was notably shorter compared to the conventional dressing change group, and this difference was also statistically significant (both P < 0.05).Specific data on the initial wound diameter, wound diameter at each time point (day 3, 7, 10), and total healing time of the two groups are presented in Table 1 (Table 1: Comparison of Healing Outcomes Between the Two Groups) — for instance, the average healing time of the observation group was 9.29 ± 5.489 days, which was significantly shorter than that of the control group (21.58 ± 20.717 days). To visually demonstrate the therapeutic effect, clinical cases of the observation group (treated with Phase I debridement, suturing, and drainage) are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 (Figure 2-3: Clinical Cases of Phase I Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Before and After Treatment). Figure 2 displays the wound before treatment: there was obvious redness, swelling, and purulent exudate, indicating active infection. Figure 3 shows the same wound 7 days after treatment: the exudate was significantly reduced, the wound edge was neatly epithelized, and the wound area was narrowed, which directly confirms the effectiveness of the treatment in promoting wound healing and controlling infection.” Table 1: Comparison of Healing Outcomes Between the Two Groups Routine dressing change group (n=24) Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (n=24) t P Initial wound diameter 6.83±3.875 7.21±4.16 -0.323 0.748 Wound diameter on the third day of dressing change 6.04±3.303 6.58±3.586 -0.544 0.589 Wound diameter on the 7th day of dressing change 5.54±2.413 4.00±1.794 2.512 0.016 Wound diameter on the 10th day of dressing change 4.54±2.146 2.50±2.889 2.779 0.008 healing time 21.58±20.717 9.29±5.489 2.810 0.007 1. There was no statistically significant difference in infection indicators, including white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP), between the two groups at the time of admission (P>0.05). However, by the 7th day of dressing changes, the infection indicators in the stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group were significantly lower compared to those in the conventional dressing change group (both P<0.05).Detailed data on the WBC (×10⁹/L) and CRP (mg/L) levels of the two groups at admission and on the 7th day of dressing changes are detailed in Table 2 (Table 2: Comparison of Two Sets of Infection Indicators) — the reduction in infection indicators in the observation group confirmed the effectiveness of this treatment in controlling wound infection. Table 2:Comparison of two sets of infection indicators Routine dressing change group (n=24) Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (n=24) t P WBC at admission (× 10 ^ 9/L) 8.65±3.300 8.09±3.183 0.599 0.552 CRP (mg/L) upon admission 32.58±49.440 15.14±24.240 1.552 0.128 On the 7th day of admission, WBC (× 10 ^ 9/L) 8.40±3.151 6.878±1.620 2.100 0.041 CRP (mg/L) on the 7th day of admission 23.20±36.586 5.29±0.859 2.398 0.021 3. There was a notable difference in wound healing time between the two patient groups (P < 0.05), with the observation group demonstrating a significantly shorter healing time compared to the control group. Similarly, a significant difference was observed in infection control time between the two groups (P < 0.001), as the observation group achieved infection control notably faster than the control group.The median wound healing time and infection control time (expressed as M (P25, P75)) of the two groups are presented in Table 3 (Table 3: Comparison of Wound Healing Time and Infection Control Duration Between Two Patient Groups) — the observation group’s median infection control time (3.00 days) was much shorter than that of the control group (9.00 days), reflecting rapid infection control. Table 3: Comparison of Wound Healing Time and Infection Control Duration Between Two Patient Groups group Number of cases Wound healing time (d) Infection control time (d) Control group [M (P25, P75)] 24 13.00（8.25,29.50） 9.00（7.25,10.75） Observation group [M (P25, P75)] 24 7.00（5.25,14.50） 3.00（3.00,4.75） Mann-Whitney U 178.50 22.00 P 0.023 ＜0.001 4. On the first, third, and seventh days following surgery, the observation group exhibited significantly higher VAS scores compared to the control group, with the differences reaching statistical significance (P < 0.05). This may be attributed to the short-term inflammatory response caused by debridement and drainage manipulation, which gradually alleviates as the wound heals.for example, the observation group’s median VAS score on the 7th day was 5.50, which was higher than the control group’s 1.50. This short-term higher pain level is related to the surgical manipulation of debridement and drainage, and the pain will gradually decrease with the control of wound infection and the progress of healing. Table 4: Comparison of Pain Levels Between Two Patient Groups group Number of cases VAS score on the first day after surgery VAS score on the third day after surgery VAS score on the 7th day after surgery Control group [M (P25, P75)] 24 5.00（4.00,6.00） 3.00（2.00,4.00） 1.50（1.00,2.00） Observation group [M (P25, P75)] 24 6.00（5.00,7.00） 6.00（5.00,7.00） 5.50（5.00,6.00） Mann-Whitney U 451.50 576.00 576.00 P ＜0.001 ＜0.001 ＜0.001 5.The VSS score for scar formation in the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). This finding indicates that scar formation in the observation group was superior to that observed in the control group.The median VSS scores (including scar color, thickness, and softness indicators) of the two groups are presented in Table 5 (Table 5: Comparison of Scar Formation) — the observation group’s median VSS score (2.00) was lower than the control group’s (5.00), reflecting better scar quality. Table 5: Comparison of Scar Formation Number of cases Scar VSS score Control group [M (P25, P75)] 24 5.00（4.00,5.00） Observation group [M (P25, P75)] 24 2.00（1.00,2.75） Mann-Whitney U 563.00 P ＜0.001 6.The patient satisfaction in the observation group was markedly higher than that in the control group, with the difference proving to be statistically significant (χ² = 6.332, P < 0.05).The distribution of patient satisfaction (including "very satisfied", "satisfied", and "unsatisfied" cases, expressed as n, %) in the two groups is detailed in Table 6 (Table 6: Comparison of Satisfaction Levels Between Two Patient Groups) — the observation group’s satisfaction rate (95.9%) was much higher than the control group’s (75.0%), confirming patient recognition of this treatment. Table 6: Comparison of Satisfaction Levels Between Two Patient Groups Very satisfied satisfied Dissatisfied Control group (%) 6（25.0） 12（50.0） 6（25.0） Observation group (%) 13（54.2） 10（41.7） 1（4.1） X2 6.332 P 0.042 Discussion The key to treating infectious skin injuries lies in controlling the infection and promoting wound healing. While traditional routine dressing changes help maintain wound cleanliness, the open nature of the wound often makes it susceptible to external bacterial contamination. Additionally, the inability to promptly drain exudate hinders the healing process. A more proactive approach involves one-stage wound debridement, suturing, and drainage. Debridement effectively removes the infection source and necrotic tissue within the wound, thereby curbing bacterial growth. Drainage facilitates the timely removal of exudate, reduces local pressure, enhances blood circulation, and establishes a favorable microenvironment for healing. Meanwhile, suturing helps align the wound edges, minimizing the exposed area and encouraging the migration and proliferation of epithelial cells—all of which contribute to faster and more efficient wound recovery. The findings of this study reveal that, compared to traditional dressing change methods, stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage significantly reduce wound healing time while demonstrating superior effectiveness in controlling infection indicators [5] . The observation group exhibited a notably shorter wound healing time compared to the control group, underscoring the ability of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage to accelerate the healing of infectious skin wounds, shorten the duration of infection control, facilitate the removal of wound exudate, and create an optimal environment for tissue repair and regeneration [6] . Furthermore, stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage not only significantly reduced the healing time of infectious skin wounds but also effectively managed key infection markers such as white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels [7] .From the standpoint of pain management, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of the observation group were markedly lower than those of the control group on the 3rd and 7th postoperative days. This suggests that the treatment approach effectively alleviates patients’ pain, potentially due to its role in reducing the stimulation of inflammatory mediators and wound exudate on nerve endings, thereby promoting wound healing and minimizing discomfort. Regarding scar formation, the observation group demonstrated lower Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores than the control group, indicating that stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage also contribute to reduced scar formation. This is particularly significant for improving both the aesthetic outcomes and psychological well-being of patients.Additionally, the patient satisfaction level in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group, further confirming the efficacy and advantages of this treatment approach. These findings highlight the critical importance of stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infectious skin injuries and underscore its considerable potential for clinical application [8] .Consequently, wound debridement, suturing, and drainage are expected to become one of the preferred methods for treating infectious skin injuries and have already been widely adopted and promoted in clinical practice. According to our research findings, which align with the existing literature [9-12] , Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage play a pivotal role in the treatment of infectious skin wounds. These interventions effectively reduce wound healing time, control infection, alleviate patient pain, minimize scar formation, and enhance patient satisfaction. This is consistent with prior research [13-14] , further confirming the efficacy of Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infectious skin injuries. However, some differences between our results and the existing literature have been noted [15] . For instance, on the 7th day of dressing change, the infection indicators in the wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group were significantly lower compared to the traditional dressing change group. This observation diverges slightly from certain reported findings in the literature. These discrepancies may be attributed to variations in sample size, study design, or clinical practices. Further research is needed to validate these findings and investigate the underlying mechanisms and influencing factors involved in wound debridement, suturing, and drainage for the treatment of infectious skin injuries. Wound debridement, suturing, and drainage during stage I treatment have certain drawbacks. These include the potential for drainage tube blockage, retrograde infections, and loose connections between the drainage tube and the negative pressure device, which can result in the loss of negative pressure. Additionally, restricted patient movement may cause discomfort. Several critical considerations must also be addressed during the implementation of wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in the initial phase. Firstly, debridement should be thorough to remove necrotic tissue and foreign objects completely, as their remnants can impede wound healing and hinder infection control. Secondly, careful selection and placement of drainage materials are essential to ensure smooth drainage and prevent fluid or pus accumulation caused by ineffective drainage. Moreover, close postoperative monitoring of the wound is crucial to detect and manage potential complications, such as worsening infections or wound dehiscence, at the earliest opportunity. Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage may not be suitable for all types of infectious skin injuries, particularly for wounds involving exposed major blood vessels or organs. Consequently, in clinical practice, physicians must carefully evaluate the specific conditions and characteristics of a patient's wounds, weighing the benefits and risks of Phase I debridement, suturing, and drainage to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for personalized care. Future research should aim to further investigate the mechanisms and influencing factors associated with Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage, with the goal of enhancing treatment effectiveness and offering more robust guidance for clinical practice. This study presents certain limitations and shortcomings that warrant consideration. First, the sample size is relatively small, comprising only 48 patients. Such a limitation may restrict the generalizability and reliability of the findings. Future research should aim to include larger sample sizes to validate the results. Second, the study employed a retrospective analysis, a methodology commonly associated with drawbacks such as information bias and incomplete data. To overcome these issues, prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to more accurately assess the efficacy of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infected skin trauma. Additionally, the follow-up period in this study was relatively brief, focusing solely on short-term outcomes. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, long-term effects should be observed and analyzed in future investigations. Lastly, while this study evaluated clinical indicators during treatment, it did not account for other critical factors such as patient quality of life or pain levels. Exploring these dimensions in subsequent research could provide deeper insights into the broader implications of treatment approaches. In conclusion, primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage have demonstrated superior outcomes compared to conventional dressing changes in treating infected skin trauma. These advantages include shorter wound healing time, faster infection control, reduced pain levels, minimized scar formation, and higher patient satisfaction, highlighting their significant clinical value. However, the relatively small sample size of this study presents a limitation. Future research should focus on expanding the sample size and conducting multi-center, prospective studies to further confirm the efficacy and safety of this approach. Such efforts would provide valuable insights for future studies and clinical applications, facilitating the broader adoption of this treatment method and offering patients more effective care options. Declarations Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Author Contributions: Nie Yan: Experimental design, manuscript writing, and illustrations Geng Quanli and Jin Shuang: Statistical data analysis.Liu Zhi and Ma Xu: Data organization Ye Jinseng: Research supervision, manuscript review, and financial support Consent for publication: All authors have read and approved the final manuscript and consent to its publication. Ethics: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (affiliated with Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University) (Approval No.: 2024BL02-098-02). Informed consent has been obtained from all patients (or their family members/legal representatives) for the retrospectively collected data from this hospital. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Funding: Special Project for Scientific Research in the Development of Capital Health (Start 2020-2-2232);Scientific Research Cultivation Plan of Beijing Municipal Hospitals (PZ20231003);Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission Capital Clinical Characteristic Application Research and Achievement Promotion Project (Z171100001017034);Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Two-Hospital Cooperation Fund Project (YJ-201728); References Tottoli EM, Dorati R, Genta I, Chiesa E, Pisani S, Conti B. Skin Wound Healing Process and New Emerging Technologies for Skin Wound Care and Regeneration. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(8):735. 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080735 . PMID: 32764269; PMCID: PMC7463929. Papadopoulou V, Sidders AE, Lu KY, Velez AZ, Durham PG, Bui DT, Angeles-Solano M, Dayton PA, Rowe SE. Overcoming biological barriers to improve treatment of a Staphylococcus aureus wound infection. Cell Chem Biol. 2023;30(5):513–e5265. 10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.04.009 . Epub 2023 May 5. PMID: 37148883; PMCID: PMC10198964. Xu J, Younis MR, Zhang Z, Feng Y, Su L, Que Y, Jiao Y, Fan C, Chang J, Ni S, Yang C. Mild Heat-Assisted Polydopamine/Alginate Hydrogel Containing Low-Dose Nanoselenium for Facilitating Infected Wound Healing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2023;15(6):7841–54. 10.1021/acsami.2c21516 . Epub 2023 Jan 31. PMID: 36719417. Cheng S, Wang H, Pan X, Zhang C, Zhang K, Chen Z, Dong W, Xie A, Qi X. Dendritic Hydrogels with Robust Inherent Antibacterial Properties for Promoting Bacteria-Infected Wound Healing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2022;14(9):11144–55. 10.1021/acsami.1c25014 . Epub 2022 Feb 23. PMID: 35195389. Venosi S, Ceccarelli G, de Angelis M, Laghi L, Bianchi L, Martinelli O, Maruca D, Cavallari EN, Toscanella F, Vassalini P, Trinchieri V, Oliva A, d'Ettorre G. Infected chronic ischemic wound topically treated with a multi-strain probiotic formulation: a novel tailored treatment strategy. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):364. 10.1186/s12967-019-2111-0 . PMID: 31706326; PMCID: PMC6842486. Chen Y, Zhang M, Chen L, Pan M, Qin M, Guo Y, Zhang Y, Pan H, Zhou Y. Self-organization of zinc ions with a photosensitizer in vivo for enhanced antibiofilm and infected wound healing. Nanoscale. 2022;14(21):7837–7848. 10.1039/d2nr01404a . PMID: 35583070. Brown JL, Townsend E, Short RD, Williams C, Woodall C, Nile CJ, Ramage G. Assessing the inflammatory response to in vitro polymicrobial wound biofilms in a skin epidermis model. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8(1):19. 10.1038/s41522-022-00286-z . PMID: 35393409; PMCID: PMC8991182. Farahpour MR, Pirkhezr E, Ashrafian A, Sonboli A. Accelerated healing by topical administration of Salvia officinalis essential oil on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus infected wound model. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;128:110120. 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110120 . Epub 2020 May 24. PMID: 32460189. Lin Huixin Z, Wanggao Z. Application of negative pressure drainage device in hand surgery drainage [J]. Practical J Hand Surg. 2020;34(3):266–8. 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2722.2020.03.006 . Cai Yijun Z, Hongqian F. Effect observation of irrigable negative pressure closed drainage in treating postoperative wound infection after appendectomy [J]. Chin J Nosocomiology. 2013;23(17):4171–2. Wei Ruili M, Hui Y. Efficacy analysis of homemade simple negative pressure drainage device combined with Prontu liquid wound dressing in treating infected abdominal wounds [J]. J Colorectal Anal Surg. 2021;27(03):280–3. 10.19668/j.cnki.issn1674-0491.2021.03.025 . Wang X. Combined use of closed negative pressure drainage and local oxygen therapy effectively treats traumatic chronic wounds [J]. Genomics Appl Biology. 2018;37(03):935–42. 10.13417/j.gab.037.000935 . Zhou Wanggao Y, Xuelang C, Lefeng, et al. Application of wound negative pressure drainage device in flexor tendon release of the hand [J]. Hainan Med J. 2018;29(09):1287–9. Zhou Wanggao W, Wenyi Z, Jinhuo, et al. Application of wound negative pressure drainage device in hand tumor excision surgery [J]. J Practical Orthop. 2018;24(05):475–6. 10.13795/j.cnki.sgkz.2018.05.025 . Zhang, Qiang. Liu Jun. Research progress on the mechanism of vacuum sealing drainage technique treatment [J]. Mod Clin Surg Lingnan. 2017;17(01):128–31. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 14 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 19 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 06 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7962727","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":575063039,"identity":"21e2dc7b-c797-4f60-9ee6-c4aad672bc6e","order_by":0,"name":"Nie Yan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nie","middleName":"","lastName":"Yan","suffix":""},{"id":575063040,"identity":"b5560a51-59b2-4fd6-8095-b2687715e837","order_by":1,"name":"Geng Quanli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Geng","middleName":"","lastName":"Quanli","suffix":""},{"id":575063041,"identity":"9c6844ef-c558-48f3-a072-8f26ec3a7081","order_by":2,"name":"Jin Shuang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jin","middleName":"","lastName":"Shuang","suffix":""},{"id":575063042,"identity":"79b57b0d-cf84-4951-bc12-14291f1b52e5","order_by":3,"name":"Liu Zhi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liu","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhi","suffix":""},{"id":575063043,"identity":"66853e68-a526-4d4d-addb-9104e065ce8f","order_by":4,"name":"Ma Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ma","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":575063044,"identity":"578426e9-670f-4fa3-8b73-4d5ac32598cf","order_by":5,"name":"Ye Jingsheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ye","middleName":"","lastName":"Jingsheng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-27 17:19:50","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100432682,"identity":"61d346b6-e4f0-44ad-98b1-e67ae2072f0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1022620,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/f4a1a7a921c08026907e5703.docx"},{"id":100432683,"identity":"e7def326-37e3-42fa-8a67-82f0166722fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7395,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a8b1c32d9e014355bf581788b789203f.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/05ec13ea95bfb8033270f760.json"},{"id":100432686,"identity":"7c34cf9f-16b6-46bc-b7c7-c8c67ce8d809","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a8b1c32d9e014355bf581788b789203f1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/7cbcd594e9f0677f48e76bd1.xml"},{"id":100432680,"identity":"22938184-cab6-4e76-b69d-5e17d3aac836","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34011,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/38212519e5a3d27f8d2036ca.png"},{"id":100432687,"identity":"82398eda-8f5b-447d-8892-8be774e733f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131375,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/815ae90f8292469e27a3e281.png"},{"id":100432688,"identity":"16b40c88-3814-49c5-8db2-ddce223ddf48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 15:06:39","extension":"xml","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":76045,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a8b1c32d9e014355bf581788b789203f1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/5ec18e409e540ae642084081.xml"},{"id":100546499,"identity":"419bd6de-7914-4c33-9a23-c0a773ce4577","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 08:09:55","extension":"html","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":85755,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/c05f57403fc7d02034b9c265.html"},{"id":100546762,"identity":"f81c0b3a-83fd-4a9e-84e8-ca04a933a847","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 08:12:22","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33050,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic diagram of Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage procedures.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/492c86577553213126b1225b.jpeg"},{"id":100546658,"identity":"d0458b8c-2ba9-43a8-911c-36c91f46b5ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 08:11:41","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":943643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2-3: Clinical Cases of Phase I Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage (Before and After Treatment).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/c4da554c88e9f01bfd824d8f.png"},{"id":100594340,"identity":"5e975c70-6bc9-4beb-9f8f-5d5731fd1b6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 13:40:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1914921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7962727/v1/0e71cfe8-7938-46e9-a96b-e6305c779e96.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Analysis of the Effectiveness of Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage in Treating Infectious Skin Injuries","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSkin trauma refers to the disruption of skin integrity caused by various external traumatic factors or internal conditions, such as impaired blood supply within the body, which can lead to the loss of normal tissue function. Clinically, common causes include trauma, surgical procedures, diabetes, and other related factors \u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e. If left untreated or addressed with inappropriate methods, skin trauma can result in aggravated infections, delayed wound healing, or even systemic infections, posing significant risks to a patient's physical health and overall quality of life \u003csup\u003e[2]\u003c/sup\u003e. Currently, clinical approaches primarily focus on anti-inflammatory treatments and techniques to promote trauma repair in affected patients \u003csup\u003e[3]\u003c/sup\u003e. While traditional dressing changes can help control infections to some extent, they often come with drawbacks such as prolonged healing times, noticeable scarring, and limited therapeutic outcomes \u003csup\u003e[4]\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, these methods may increase the patient's physical discomfort. In contrast, the implementation of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage techniques offers a more comprehensive solution. These techniques allow for the thorough removal of necrotic tissue, foreign materials, and bacteria from the wound. In addition, drainage materials are used to expel wound exudates, and the wound is sutured simultaneously, thereby creating optimal conditions for healing. These methods have been widely adopted in the clinical management of chronic wounds. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in treating infected skin trauma, providing valuable insights and references for improving clinical practices in this field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e1. Data Collection: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 48 patients with infectious skin trauma treated at Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, from January 2023 to December 2023. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the conventional dressing change group (24 cases), comprising 14 males and 10 females, aged 27 to 87 years; and the primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (24 cases), comprising 16 males and 8 females, aged 24 to 83 years. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding gender, age, wound type, wound area, or other general characteristics (P \u0026gt; 0.05), ensuring comparability between them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Inclusion Criteria: 1. Age \u0026ge; 18 years. 2. Diagnosis of infectious skin trauma, with wound areas measuring between 3-20 cm\u0026sup2; and injury occurring within 72 hours. Patients and/or their families must fully understand the purpose and method of dressing changes and provide written informed consent. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Wounds involving exposure of major blood vessels or internal organs. 2. Wounds connected to organs via fistulas. 3. Patients with severe dysfunction of vital organs, including the heart, liver, or kidneys, or those with conditions that impair wound healing, such as hematological disorders or malignant tumors. 4. Known allergies to suture materials. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;---\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;3. Dressing changes are performed by the patient\u0026apos;s attending physician and specialized wound care nurses.\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.1 Conventional Dressing Change Group: Begin by rinsing the wound with normal saline to remove surface dirt and foreign particles. Disinfect the surrounding skin with iodophor. For wounds with purulent exudate, rinse thoroughly with hydrogen peroxide, followed by normal saline to ensure cleanliness. Select an appropriate dressing based on the condition of the wound, such as petroleum jelly gauze or iodophor gauze. The frequency of dressing changes is determined by the amount of wound exudate and the presence of infection, continuing until the wound fully heals.\u003cbr\u003e3.2 Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Group: Position the patient appropriately to ensure full exposure of the wound. Disinfect the surrounding skin with 0.5% iodophor and place sterile drapes around the area. Rinse the wound with normal saline to remove dirt, foreign matter, and necrotic tissue. For deeper wounds, use hydrogen peroxide to eliminate anaerobic bacteria. Examine the wound thoroughly and ensure complete hemostasis. If signs of infection are present, collect exudate samples for bacterial culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing to guide targeted antibiotic therapy. Prepare a surgical drainage tube with three side holes in its center, positioning it deep within the wound to ensure effective drainage. Close the wound with absorbable sutures or silk thread using intermittent stitching, maintaining moderate spacing to prevent overly tight or loose sutures that could impair blood flow. After suturing, disinfect the wound again with iodophor and cover it with a sterile dressing.Postoperatively, connect one end of the infusion set to a negative pressure suction device and attach the other end to the drainage system. The infusion set should contain normal saline and antibiotics, which are infused at a rate of 40\u0026ndash;50 drops per minute. Record the daily input and output of fluids, and change the dressing accordingly. Adjust the infusion rate based on the characteristics and color of the drainage fluid. Criteria for discontinuing irrigation and removing the drainage tube include a significant reduction in drainage volume, a normal fluid color, stable skin temperature, controlled infection, and the absence of significant pain upon palpation of the area.A schematic diagram illustrating the key steps of this Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage procedure (including wound disinfection, debridement, drainage tube placement, suturing, and postoperative negative pressure irrigation) is provided in Figure 1 (Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of Phase I Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Procedures).\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;4. Observation Indicators \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e（1）. Wound Healing Condition: Evaluate the wound healing process, including the initial wound diameter and measurements on the 3rd, 7th, and 10th days of dressing changes, as well as the total wound healing time. Healing time is defined as the period from the initiation of treatment until complete epithelial coverage is achieved, with no exudate, swelling, pain, or other symptoms present. The percentage of wound healing (%) is calculated as: (Initial Diameter - Current Diameter) / Initial Diameter \u0026times; 100%*. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e（2）. Infection Indicators: Record the patient\u0026apos;s white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels upon admission and on the 7th day following dressing changes. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e（3）. Pain Level: Assess the patient\u0026apos;s pain levels using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th days after surgery. Pain levels are defined as follows: 0: No pain. 1\u0026ndash;3: Mild pain. 4\u0026ndash;6: Moderate pain. 7\u0026ndash;10: Severe pain. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e（4）. Scar Formation: One month after wound healing, evaluate scar quality using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), which considers factors such as color, thickness, vascular distribution, and softness. Lower scores reflect better scar formation outcomes. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e（5）. Patient Satisfaction: Assess patient satisfaction with the treatment outcomes using a questionnaire after wound healing, categorizing responses into three levels: \u0026quot;very satisfied,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;satisfied,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;unsatisfied.\u0026quot; Satisfaction is calculated as: (Number of Very Satisfied Cases + Number of Satisfied Cases) / Total Number of Cases \u0026times; 100%. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;5. Statistical Analysis: Intergroup differences were assessed using t-tests, with all measured data presented as (X \u0026plusmn; S). Statistical evaluations were conducted using SPSS 20.0 software. A p-value of less than 0.05 (P \u0026lt; 0.05) was considered indicative of statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e1.The initial wound diameters showed no significant differences between the two groups (P \u0026gt; 0.05). However, by day 7 and day 10 of dressing changes, the wounds in the group treated with primary debridement, suturing, and drainage were significantly smaller than those in the conventional dressing change group, with the differences reaching statistical significance (both P \u0026lt; 0.05). Furthermore, the wound healing time in the primary debridement, suturing, and drainage group was notably shorter compared to the conventional dressing change group, and this difference was also statistically significant (both P \u0026lt; 0.05).Specific data on the initial wound diameter, wound diameter at each time point (day 3, 7, 10), and total healing time of the two groups are presented in Table 1 (Table 1: Comparison of Healing Outcomes Between the Two Groups)\u0026nbsp;\u0026mdash;\u0026nbsp;for instance, the average healing time of the observation group was 9.29\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;5.489 days, which was significantly shorter than that of the control group (21.58\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;20.717 days).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo visually demonstrate the therapeutic effect, clinical cases of the observation group (treated with Phase I debridement, suturing, and drainage) are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 (Figure 2-3: Clinical Cases of Phase I Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage Before and After Treatment). Figure 2 displays the wound before treatment: there was obvious redness, swelling, and purulent exudate, indicating active infection. Figure 3 shows the same wound 7 days after treatment: the exudate was significantly reduced, the wound edge was neatly epithelized, and the wound area was narrowed, which directly confirms the effectiveness of the treatment in promoting wound healing and controlling infection.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Comparison of Healing Outcomes Between the Two Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoutine dressing change group (n=24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (n=24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitial wound diameter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.83\u0026plusmn;3.875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.21\u0026plusmn;4.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.323\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.748\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWound diameter on the third day of dressing change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.04\u0026plusmn;3.303\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.58\u0026plusmn;3.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.544\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.589\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWound diameter on the 7th day of dressing change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.54\u0026plusmn;2.413\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.00\u0026plusmn;1.794\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.512\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWound diameter on the 10th day of dressing change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.54\u0026plusmn;2.146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50\u0026plusmn;2.889\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehealing time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.58\u0026plusmn;20.717\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.29\u0026plusmn;5.489\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. There was no statistically significant difference in infection indicators, including white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP), between the two groups at the time of admission (P\u0026gt;0.05). However, by the 7th day of dressing changes, the infection indicators in the stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group were significantly lower compared to those in the conventional dressing change group (both P\u0026lt;0.05).Detailed data on the WBC (\u0026times;10⁹/L) and CRP (mg/L) levels of the two groups at admission and on the 7th day of dressing changes are detailed in Table 2 (Table 2: Comparison of Two Sets of Infection Indicators) \u0026mdash; the reduction in infection indicators in the observation group confirmed the effectiveness of this treatment in controlling wound infection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2:Comparison of two sets of infection indicators\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"557\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoutine dressing change group (n=24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group (n=24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWBC at admission (\u0026times; 10 ^ 9/L)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.65\u0026plusmn;3.300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.09\u0026plusmn;3.183\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.599\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.552\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRP (mg/L) upon admission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.58\u0026plusmn;49.440\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.14\u0026plusmn;24.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.552\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn the 7th day of admission, WBC (\u0026times; 10 ^ 9/L)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.40\u0026plusmn;3.151\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.878\u0026plusmn;1.620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCRP (mg/L) on the 7th day of admission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.20\u0026plusmn;36.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.29\u0026plusmn;0.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.398\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. There was a notable difference in wound healing time between the two patient groups (P \u0026lt; 0.05), with the observation group demonstrating a significantly shorter healing time compared to the control group. Similarly, a significant difference was observed in infection control time between the two groups (P \u0026lt; 0.001), as the observation group achieved infection control notably faster than the control group.The median wound healing time and infection control time (expressed as M (P25, P75)) of the two groups are presented in Table 3 (Table 3: Comparison of Wound Healing Time and Infection Control Duration Between Two Patient Groups)\u0026nbsp;\u0026mdash;\u0026nbsp;the observation group\u0026rsquo;s median infection control time (3.00 days) was much shorter than that of the control group (9.00 days), reflecting rapid infection control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3:\u0026nbsp;Comparison of Wound Healing Time and Infection Control Duration Between Two Patient Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWound healing time (d)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfection control time (d)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.00（8.25,29.50）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.00（7.25,10.75）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.00（5.25,14.50）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00（3.00,4.75）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMann-Whitney U\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e178.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. On the first, third, and seventh days following surgery, the observation group exhibited significantly higher VAS scores compared to the control group, with the differences reaching statistical significance (P \u0026lt; 0.05). This may be attributed to the short-term inflammatory response caused by debridement and drainage manipulation, which gradually alleviates as the wound heals.for example, the observation group\u0026rsquo;s median VAS score on the 7th day was 5.50, which was higher than the control group\u0026rsquo;s 1.50. This short-term higher pain level is related to the surgical manipulation of debridement and drainage, and the pain will gradually decrease with the control of wound infection and the progress of healing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4: Comparison of Pain Levels Between Two Patient Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"98%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVAS score on the first day after surgery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVAS score on the third day after surgery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVAS score on the 7th day after surgery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00（4.00,6.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00（2.00,4.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.50（1.00,2.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.00（5.00,7.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.00（5.00,7.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.50（5.00,6.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMann-Whitney U\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e451.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e576.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e576.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.The VSS score for scar formation in the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P\u0026lt;0.05). This finding indicates that scar formation in the observation group was superior to that observed in the control group.The median VSS scores (including scar color, thickness, and softness indicators) of the two groups are presented in Table 5 (Table 5: Comparison of Scar Formation)\u0026nbsp;\u0026mdash;\u0026nbsp;the observation group\u0026rsquo;s median VSS score (2.00) was lower than the control group\u0026rsquo;s (5.00), reflecting better scar quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5: Comparison of Scar Formation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"98%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScar VSS score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00（4.00,5.00）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation group [M (P25, P75)]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.00（1.00,2.75）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMann-Whitney U\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e563.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.The patient satisfaction in the observation group was markedly higher than that in the control group, with the difference proving to be statistically significant (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u0026nbsp;= 6.332, P \u0026lt; 0.05).The distribution of patient satisfaction (including \u0026quot;very satisfied\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;satisfied\u0026quot;, and \u0026quot;unsatisfied\u0026quot; cases, expressed as n, %) in the two groups is detailed in Table 6 (Table 6: Comparison of Satisfaction Levels Between Two Patient Groups)\u0026nbsp;\u0026mdash;\u0026nbsp;the observation group\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction rate (95.9%) was much higher than the control group\u0026rsquo;s (75.0%), confirming patient recognition of this treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Comparison of Satisfaction Levels Between Two Patient Groups \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery satisfied\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esatisfied\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDissatisfied\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6（25.0）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12（50.0）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6（25.0）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation group (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13（54.2）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10（41.7）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1（4.1）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.332\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe key to treating infectious skin injuries lies in controlling the infection and promoting wound healing. While traditional routine dressing changes help maintain wound cleanliness, the open nature of the wound often makes it susceptible to external bacterial contamination. Additionally, the inability to promptly drain exudate hinders the healing process. A more proactive approach involves one-stage wound debridement, suturing, and drainage. Debridement effectively removes the infection source and necrotic tissue within the wound, thereby curbing bacterial growth. Drainage facilitates the timely removal of exudate, reduces local pressure, enhances blood circulation, and establishes a favorable microenvironment for healing. Meanwhile, suturing helps align the wound edges, minimizing the exposed area and encouraging the migration and proliferation of epithelial cells—all of which contribute to faster and more efficient wound recovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study reveal that, compared to traditional dressing change methods, stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage significantly reduce wound healing time while demonstrating superior effectiveness in controlling infection indicators\u003csup\u003e[5]\u003c/sup\u003e. The observation group exhibited a notably shorter wound healing time compared to the control group, underscoring the ability of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage to accelerate the healing of infectious skin wounds, shorten the duration of infection control, facilitate the removal of wound exudate, and create an optimal environment for tissue repair and regeneration\u003csup\u003e[6]\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage not only significantly reduced the healing time of infectious skin wounds but also effectively managed key infection markers such as white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels\u003csup\u003e[7]\u003c/sup\u003e.From the standpoint of pain management, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of the observation group were markedly lower than those of the control group on the 3rd and 7th postoperative days. This suggests that the treatment approach effectively alleviates patients’ pain, potentially due to its role in reducing the stimulation of inflammatory mediators and wound exudate on nerve endings, thereby promoting wound healing and minimizing discomfort. Regarding scar formation, the observation group demonstrated lower Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores than the control group, indicating that stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage also contribute to reduced scar formation. This is particularly significant for improving both the aesthetic outcomes and psychological well-being of patients.Additionally, the patient satisfaction level in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group, further confirming the efficacy and advantages of this treatment approach. These findings highlight the critical importance of stage I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infectious skin injuries and underscore its considerable potential for clinical application\u003csup\u003e[8]\u003c/sup\u003e.Consequently, wound debridement, suturing, and drainage are expected to become one of the preferred methods for treating infectious skin injuries and have already been widely adopted and promoted in clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to our research findings, which align with the existing literature \u003csup\u003e[9-12]\u003c/sup\u003e, Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage play a pivotal role in the treatment of infectious skin wounds. These interventions effectively reduce wound healing time, control infection, alleviate patient pain, minimize scar formation, and enhance patient satisfaction. This is consistent with prior research\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;[13-14]\u003c/sup\u003e, further confirming the efficacy of Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infectious skin injuries. However, some differences between our results and the existing literature have been noted \u003csup\u003e[15]\u003c/sup\u003e. For instance, on the 7th day of dressing change, the infection indicators in the wound debridement, suturing, and drainage group were significantly lower compared to the traditional dressing change group. This observation diverges slightly from certain reported findings in the literature. These discrepancies may be attributed to variations in sample size, study design, or clinical practices. Further research is needed to validate these findings and investigate the underlying mechanisms and influencing factors involved in wound debridement, suturing, and drainage for the treatment of infectious skin injuries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWound debridement, suturing, and drainage during stage I treatment have certain drawbacks. These include the potential for drainage tube blockage, retrograde infections, and loose connections between the drainage tube and the negative pressure device, which can result in the loss of negative pressure. Additionally, restricted patient movement may cause discomfort.\u0026nbsp;Several critical considerations must also be addressed during the implementation of wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in the initial phase. Firstly, debridement should be thorough to remove necrotic tissue and foreign objects completely, as their remnants can impede wound healing and hinder infection control. Secondly, careful selection and placement of drainage materials are essential to ensure smooth drainage and prevent fluid or pus accumulation caused by ineffective drainage. Moreover, close postoperative monitoring of the wound is crucial to detect and manage potential complications, such as worsening infections or wound dehiscence, at the earliest opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage may not be suitable for all types of infectious skin injuries, particularly for wounds involving exposed major blood vessels or organs. Consequently, in clinical practice, physicians must carefully evaluate the specific conditions and characteristics of a patient's wounds, weighing the benefits and risks of Phase I debridement, suturing, and drainage to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for personalized care. Future research should aim to further investigate the mechanisms and influencing factors associated with Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage, with the goal of enhancing treatment effectiveness and offering more robust guidance for clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study presents certain limitations and shortcomings that warrant consideration. First, the sample size is relatively small, comprising only 48 patients. Such a limitation may restrict the generalizability and reliability of the findings. Future research should aim to include larger sample sizes to validate the results. Second, the study employed a retrospective analysis, a methodology commonly associated with drawbacks such as information bias and incomplete data. To overcome these issues, prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to more accurately assess the efficacy of primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in managing infected skin trauma. Additionally, the follow-up period in this study was relatively brief, focusing solely on short-term outcomes. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, long-term effects should be observed and analyzed in future investigations. Lastly, while this study evaluated clinical indicators during treatment, it did not account for other critical factors such as patient quality of life or pain levels. Exploring these dimensions in subsequent research could provide deeper insights into the broader implications of treatment approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, primary wound debridement, suturing, and drainage have demonstrated superior outcomes compared to conventional dressing changes in treating infected skin trauma. These advantages include shorter wound healing time, faster infection control, reduced pain levels, minimized scar formation, and higher patient satisfaction, highlighting their significant clinical value. However, the relatively small sample size of this study presents a limitation. Future research should focus on expanding the sample size and conducting multi-center, prospective studies to further confirm the efficacy and safety of this approach. Such efforts would provide valuable insights for future studies and clinical applications, facilitating the broader adoption of this treatment method and offering patients more effective care options.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. \u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e Nie Yan: Experimental design, manuscript writing, and illustrations Geng Quanli and Jin Shuang: Statistical data analysis.Liu Zhi and Ma Xu: Data organization Ye Jinseng: Research supervision, manuscript review, and financial support \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors have read and approved the final manuscript and consent to its publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Yanqing Hospital, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (affiliated with Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University) (Approval No.: 2024BL02-098-02). Informed consent has been obtained from all patients (or their family members/legal representatives) for the retrospectively collected data from this hospital. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003eSpecial Project for Scientific Research in the Development of Capital Health (Start 2020-2-2232);Scientific Research Cultivation Plan of Beijing Municipal Hospitals (PZ20231003);Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission Capital Clinical Characteristic Application Research and Achievement Promotion Project (Z171100001017034);Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Two-Hospital Cooperation Fund Project (YJ-201728);\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTottoli EM, Dorati R, Genta I, Chiesa E, Pisani S, Conti B. Skin Wound Healing Process and New Emerging Technologies for Skin Wound Care and Regeneration. Pharmaceutics. 2020;12(8):735. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/pharmaceutics12080735\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/pharmaceutics12080735\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 32764269; PMCID: PMC7463929.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapadopoulou V, Sidders AE, Lu KY, Velez AZ, Durham PG, Bui DT, Angeles-Solano M, Dayton PA, Rowe SE. Overcoming biological barriers to improve treatment of a Staphylococcus aureus wound infection. Cell Chem Biol. 2023;30(5):513\u0026ndash;e5265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.04.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.04.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2023 May 5. PMID: 37148883; PMCID: PMC10198964.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J, Younis MR, Zhang Z, Feng Y, Su L, Que Y, Jiao Y, Fan C, Chang J, Ni S, Yang C. Mild Heat-Assisted Polydopamine/Alginate Hydrogel Containing Low-Dose Nanoselenium for Facilitating Infected Wound Healing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2023;15(6):7841\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1021/acsami.2c21516\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acsami.2c21516\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2023 Jan 31. PMID: 36719417.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng S, Wang H, Pan X, Zhang C, Zhang K, Chen Z, Dong W, Xie A, Qi X. Dendritic Hydrogels with Robust Inherent Antibacterial Properties for Promoting Bacteria-Infected Wound Healing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2022;14(9):11144\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1021/acsami.1c25014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acsami.1c25014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2022 Feb 23. PMID: 35195389.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVenosi S, Ceccarelli G, de Angelis M, Laghi L, Bianchi L, Martinelli O, Maruca D, Cavallari EN, Toscanella F, Vassalini P, Trinchieri V, Oliva A, d'Ettorre G. Infected chronic ischemic wound topically treated with a multi-strain probiotic formulation: a novel tailored treatment strategy. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):364. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12967-019-2111-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12967-019-2111-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 31706326; PMCID: PMC6842486.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Y, Zhang M, Chen L, Pan M, Qin M, Guo Y, Zhang Y, Pan H, Zhou Y. Self-organization of zinc ions with a photosensitizer in vivo for enhanced antibiofilm and infected wound healing. Nanoscale. 2022;14(21):7837\u0026ndash;7848. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1039/d2nr01404a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/d2nr01404a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 35583070.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown JL, Townsend E, Short RD, Williams C, Woodall C, Nile CJ, Ramage G. Assessing the inflammatory response to in vitro polymicrobial wound biofilms in a skin epidermis model. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8(1):19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1038/s41522-022-00286-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41522-022-00286-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 35393409; PMCID: PMC8991182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarahpour MR, Pirkhezr E, Ashrafian A, Sonboli A. Accelerated healing by topical administration of Salvia officinalis essential oil on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus infected wound model. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;128:110120. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Epub 2020 May 24. PMID: 32460189.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin Huixin Z, Wanggao Z. Application of negative pressure drainage device in hand surgery drainage [J]. Practical J Hand Surg. 2020;34(3):266\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3969/j.issn.1671-2722.2020.03.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3969/j.issn.1671-2722.2020.03.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai Yijun Z, Hongqian F. Effect observation of irrigable negative pressure closed drainage in treating postoperative wound infection after appendectomy [J]. Chin J Nosocomiology. 2013;23(17):4171\u0026ndash;2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei Ruili M, Hui Y. Efficacy analysis of homemade simple negative pressure drainage device combined with Prontu liquid wound dressing in treating infected abdominal wounds [J]. J Colorectal Anal Surg. 2021;27(03):280\u0026ndash;3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.19668/j.cnki.issn1674-0491.2021.03.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19668/j.cnki.issn1674-0491.2021.03.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X. Combined use of closed negative pressure drainage and local oxygen therapy effectively treats traumatic chronic wounds [J]. Genomics Appl Biology. 2018;37(03):935\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.13417/j.gab.037.000935\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13417/j.gab.037.000935\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou Wanggao Y, Xuelang C, Lefeng, et al. Application of wound negative pressure drainage device in flexor tendon release of the hand [J]. Hainan Med J. 2018;29(09):1287\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou Wanggao W, Wenyi Z, Jinhuo, et al. Application of wound negative pressure drainage device in hand tumor excision surgery [J]. J Practical Orthop. 2018;24(05):475\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.13795/j.cnki.sgkz.2018.05.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13795/j.cnki.sgkz.2018.05.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, Qiang. Liu Jun. Research progress on the mechanism of vacuum sealing drainage technique treatment [J]. Mod Clin Surg Lingnan. 2017;17(01):128\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-surgery","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bsur","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Surgery](http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bsur/default.aspx","title":"BMC Surgery","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Qingchuan drainage, infected wound, treatment outcome","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"【Abstract】Objective :This study evaluates and compares the clinical efficacy of phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage in the treatment of infected skin injuries with traditional treatment methods, aiming to provide a reference framework for clinical practice.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 48 patients with infected skin injuries treated at Yanqing Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine from January to December 2023. Patients were randomly divided into two groups based on their treatment methods: the control group (24 cases) underwent conventional dressing changes, while the observation group (24 cases) received wound debridement and drainage. Clinical characteristics were documented and analyzed statistically. Comparisons between the two groups were made regarding wound healing time, infection index conditions, pain levels, scar formation, and patient satisfaction.Results: The wound healing time in the debridement and drainage group was significantly shorter compared to the conventional dressing change group, with improved control over infection indicators (P\u003c0.05). Photographic records were captured on the third and seventh days after treatment for disease progression assessments, and interviews with Qingqiang complemented this evaluation (P\u003c0.05). The Early Qingqiang group demonstrated more severe disease progression compared to the photography group (P\u003c0.05).Conclusion: Phase I wound debridement, suturing, and drainage proved effective in treating infected skin injuries by significantly shortening wound healing time, controlling infections, alleviating patient pain, minimizing scar formation, and increasing patient satisfaction. This approach exhibits substantial clinical application value.","manuscriptTitle":"Analysis of the Effectiveness of Primary Wound Debridement, Suturing, and Drainage in Treating Infectious Skin Injuries","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-16 15:06:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7962727/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-14T08:56:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-19T07:09:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-06T08:31:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-05T06:39:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Surgery","date":"2025-11-05T06:36:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-surgery","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bsur","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Surgery](http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bsur/default.aspx","title":"BMC Surgery","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5dd7f528-c89f-49db-a2b6-0f0ca96d8326","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 16th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-16T15:06:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-16 15:06:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7962727","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7962727","identity":"rs-7962727","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}