Comparison of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy v/s Conventional Dressing on Chronic Ulcers at Tertiary Health Centre

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Kailash Mogal
Datta Sonwane

Abstract

Introduction: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) provides a novel option for wound treatment. Negative pressure wound therapy is a wound treatment method that subjects the wound bed to negative pressure by means of a closed system. Negative pressure wound therapy gives a moist wound healing environment that is essential for wound healing. Materials and Methods: The study was held in the surgery department of a tertiary care centre with total 50 numbers of patients of age 18 years and above. Patients were examined clinically, and necessary investigations done. Results: The difference in the rate of wound contraction was apparent since 5th day and by the time of discharge/intervention, means percentage of wound contraction was 90.9% in Negative pressure wound therapy as compared to 74.54% in conventional group patients. Mean hospital stay was significantly more in similar cases managed by conventional dressing as compared to Negative pressure wound therapy (17.23 vs 11.13 days). Conclusion: Present study showed that Negative pressure wound treatment appears to be a better option to conventional chronic wound dressings with early development of granulation tissue, rapid wound contraction and reduced hospital stay.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Mogal, K., & Sonwane, D. (2019). Comparison of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy v/s Conventional Dressing on Chronic Ulcers at Tertiary Health Centre. MVP Journal of Medical Sciences, 6(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.18311/mvpjms/2019/v6i1/18668

References

  1. Broughton 2nd G, Janis JE, Attinger CE. The basic science of wound healing, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2006 Jun; 117(7 Suppl): 12S-34S. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000225430.42531.c2. PMid:16799372.
  2. Martin P. Wound healing−aiming for perfect skin regeneration, Science. 1997 Apr 4; 276(5309):75−81. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5309.75. PMid:9082989.
  3. Fay MF. Drainage systems, Their Role in Wound Healing, AORN J. 1987; 46:442e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00012092(07)66456-4.
  4. Fox 4th JW, Golden GT. The use of drains in subcutaneous surgical procedures, Am. J. Surg. 1976; 132:673e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(76)90372-X.
  5. Fleischmann W, Lang E, Russ M. Treatment of infection by vacuum sealing, Unfallchirurg. 1997; 100:301e4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001130050123. PMid:9229781.
  6. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: A new method for wound control and treatment: Animal studies and basic foundation, Ann. Plast. Surg. 1997; 38:553e62. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199706000-00001. PMid: 9188970.
  7. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: A new method for wound control and treatment: Clinical experience, Ann. Plast. Surg. 1997; 38:563e76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199706000-00002. PMid:9188971.
  8. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Diabetic Foot Study Consortium Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot controlled trial amputation: A multicenter randomized, Lancet. 2005; 366:1704−10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(05)67695-7.
  9. https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Wound-Granulation.
  10. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Diabetic foot ulcers: Prevention, diagnosis and classification, Am. Fam. Physician. 1998; 57:1325−32.
  11. Lone, Ali M, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure versus conventional dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective case-control study, Diabetic Foot and Ankle. 2014; 5. https://doi.org/10.3402/dfa.v5.23345. PMid: 24765245, PMCid: PMC3982118.
  12. Reiber Gayle E. Epidemiology and health care costs of diabetic foot problems. The diabetic foot. Humana Press; 2002. 35−58.
  13. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton B, McGuirt W. Vacuumassisted closure: A new method for wound control and treatment: Animal studies and basic foundation, Ann. Plast. Surg. 1997; 38:553−62. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637199706000-00001. PMid:9188970.
  14. Eginton, Mark T, et al. «A prospective randomized evaluation of negative-pressure wound dressings for diabetic foot wounds.» Annals of vascular surgery17.6 (2003): 645-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-003-0065-3. PMid:14534844.
  15. Moues, C. M., et al. Comparing conventional gauze therapy to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: A prospective randomised trial, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2007; 60(6):672-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.041. PMid: 17485058.
  16. Vuerstaek JD, Vainas T, Wuite J, Nelemans P, Neumann MH, Veraart JC. State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing VacuumAssisted Closure (VAC) with modern wound dressings, J. Vasc. Surg. 2006; 44(5):1029-1037; Discussion. 1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2006.07.030. PMid: 17000077.
  17. Egemen O, Ozkaya O, Ozturk MB, Aksan T, Orman Ç, Akan M. Effective use of negative pressure wound therapy provides quick wound-bed preparation and complete graft take in the management of chronic venous ulcers, Int. Wound. J. 2012; 9(2):199−205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1742-481X.2011.00876.x. PMid:21992173.
  18. Ford CN, Reinhard ER, Yeh D, Syrek D, De Las Morenas A, Bergman SB, et al. Interim analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus the health point system in the management of pressure ulcers, Ann. Plast. Surg. 2002; 49(1):55−61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200207000-00009.
  19. Ashby RL, Dumville JC, Soares MO, McGinnis E, Stubbs N, Torgerson DJ, et al. A pilot randomised controlled trial of negative pressure wound therapy to treat grade III/IV pressure ulcers [ISRCTN69032034], Trials. 2012; 13:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-119. PMid: 22839453, PMCid: PMC3533804.
  20. Petzina R, Hoffmann J, Navasardyan A, Malmsjö M, Stamm C, Unbehaun A, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy for post-sternotomy mediastinitis reduces mortality rate and sternal re-infection rate compared to conventional treatment, Eur. J. Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 38(1):110−133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.01.028. PMid: 20171898.
  21. Assenza M, Cozza V, Sacco E, Clementi I, Tarantino B, Passafiume F, Valesini L, et al. VAC (Vacuum Assisted Closure) treatment in Fournier’s gangrene: Personal experience and literature review, Clin. Ter. 2011; 162(1):e1−5.
  22. Anghel EL, Kim PJ, Attinger CE. A solution for complex wounds: the evidence for negative pressure wound therapy with instillation, Int. Wound J. 2016; 13 Suppl 3:19−24. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12664. PMid: 27547960.
  23. Prabhdeep SN, Sanjeev KU, Ramneesh G, Kuljyot B, Shirin G. Role of negative pressure wound therapy in healing of diabetic foot ulcers, J. Surg. Tech. Case. Rep. 2011; 3:17−22. https://doi.org/10.4103/2006-8808.78466. PMid: 22022649, PMCid: PMC3192517.
  24. Llanos S, Danilla S, Barraza C, Armijo E, Piñeros JL, Quintas M. Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: A randomized, doublemasked, controlled trial, Ann. Surg. 2006; 244:700−705. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000217745.56657.e5. PMid: 17060762, PMCid: PMC1856589.