Clinical Research Directory

Timing of Cesarean Wound Dressing Removal on Wound Healing in Women With BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²

Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures in obstetric care. Women with obesity (body mass index \[BMI\] of 30 kg/m² or higher) are at increased risk for postoperative wound complications, including surgical site infections, fluid collections (seroma/hematoma), and wound separation. Postoperative wound dressings protect the surgical incision, but the optimal timing for dressing removal remains uncertain, particularly for high-risk patients. The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to compare wound healing and the occurrence of surgical site infections between two standard dressing removal schedules in women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² undergoing cesarean delivery. Participants are observed in one of two groups according to standard hospital practice: * Group 1: The sterile wound dressing is removed at approximately 48 hours after surgery. * Group 2: The sterile wound dressing is removed at approximately 5 days after surgery. Following dressing removal, incisions are assessed for signs of infection, drainage, swelling, and healing progress. The study aims to provide evidence on whether earlier dressing removal at 48 hours is safe and effective compared to delayed removal at 5 days in women with obesity.

Vacuum-Assisted Closure Versus Graduated Primary Skin Closure for Postoperative Burst Abdomen

Burst abdomen, or complete abdominal wound dehiscence, is a severe postoperative complication characterized by the separation of the musculo-aponeurotic layer of the abdominal wall. It leads to extended hospital stays, high treatment costs, and an increased risk of long-term incisional hernia. While negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) is widely utilized, graduated (staged) primary skin closure remains a common, accessible bedside alternative. Direct randomized comparative evidence evaluating these two approaches for established burst abdomen is limited. The main objective of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) versus graduated primary skin closure in the management of postoperative burst abdomen. Participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two groups: 1. VAC Group: Patients will receive continuous negative pressure wound therapy (-75 to -125 mmHg) applied via a specialized polyurethane foam and adhesive dressing, with changes performed every 48 to 72 hours until sufficient granulation tissue forms for definitive closure. 2. Graduated Closure Group: Patients will undergo progressive re-approximation of the wound edges using full-thickness retention sutures placed under local anesthesia and tightened incrementally every 48 to 72 hours until complete closure is achieved. The primary outcome of the study is the time to achieve complete fascial and cutaneous wound closure. Secondary outcomes include total length of hospital stay, incidence of surgical site infections, pain scores during procedures, wound recurrence, and incisional hernia formation during follow-up.

Small Bites Vs Large Bites Abdominal Midline Incisional Closure

The goal of this trial is to compare the effectiveness of small bite versus large bite abdominal incision closure in emergency settings. It will also evaluate the safety and outcomes of each technique. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does small bite closure reduce the incidence of superficial surgical site infections (SSI), wound dehiscence, and incisional hernia compared to large bite closure? What are the associated complications of each closure technique? Participants will: Undergo either a small bite or large bite abdominal incision closure during emergency laparotomy Visit the clinic for follow-up assessments at 7 days, 15 days, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-operatively Have their wound healing and complications documented and analyzed during respective visits.

A Real-World Registry of Chronic Wounds and Ulcers

WOUNDJOURNEY is a longitudinal, real-world, observational registry designed to capture the full clinical course and patient journey associated with chronic wounds and ulcers. Data are collected during routine care from over 1,400 clinicians across the USA and Puerto Rico using a highly structured certified electronic health record (EHR) or electronic data capture (EDC) system. Data are transmitted daily to the U.S. Wound Registry (USWR), a CMS-recognized Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR). The registry captures real-time, research-ready data on patient demographics, comorbidities, wound characteristics, standard-of-care treatments, complications, and advanced therapeutics. It supports robust, fit-for-purpose real-world evidence generation by enabling risk-adjusted outcome analysis, comparative effectiveness research, and quality improvement across diverse sites of care.

Real World Evidence with the Debritom+ TM Novel Micro Water Jet Technology At a Single Wound Center

Prospective, single-blinded, single-center, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess rate and frequency of wound healing and associated financial savings, when using Medaxis debritom+ versus standard of care as a choice of debridement method, where both arms follow normal wound care practice in use of advanced wound care treatments.