Literature DB >> 22420837

Clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy in challenging wounds.

Umut Tuncel1, Ünal Erkorkmaz, Aydın Turan.   

Abstract

The aim of this randomised clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients with challenging wounds. A total of 50 consecutive patients who had wound drainage for more than 5 days, required open wound management and had existence of culture positive infection were included the study. In this study, gauze-based NPWT was compared with conventional dressing therapy in the treatment of patients with difficult-to-heal wounds. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I (n = 25) was followed by conventional antiseptic (polyhexanide solution) dressings, and group II (n = 25) was treated with saline-soaked antibacterial gauze-based NPWT. The wounds' sizes, number of debridement, bacteriology and recurrence were compared between group I and group II. The mean age of the patients was 59·50 years (range 23-97). In group I, average wound sizes of pre- and post-treatment periods were 50·60 ± 55·35 and 42·50 ± 47·92 cm(2), respectively (P < 0·001). Average duration of treatment was 25·52 ± 16·99 days, and average wound size reduction following the treatment was 19·99% in this group. In group II, the wounds displayed considerable shrinkage, accelerated granulation tissue formation, decreased and cleared away exudate. The average wound sizes in the pre- and post-treatment periods were 98·44 ± 100·88 and 72·08 ± 75·78 cm(2) , respectively (P < 0·001). Average duration of treatment was 11·96 ± 2·48 days, and average wound size reduction following the treatment was 32·34%. The patients treated with antibacterial gauze-based NPWT had a significantly reduced recurrence (2 wounds versus 14 wounds, P = 0·001), and increased number of the culture-negative cases (22 wounds versus 16 wounds, P < 0·047) in a follow-up period of 12 months. There was a statistically significant difference between two groups in all measurements. As a result, we can say that the gauze-based NPWT is a safe and effective method in the treatment of challenging infective wounds when compared with conventional wound management.
© 2012 The Authors. International Wound Journal © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22420837      PMCID: PMC7950941          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.00955.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Wound J        ISSN: 1742-4801            Impact factor:   3.315


  26 in total

Review 1.  Topical negative pressure therapy in wound care.

Authors:  P E Banwell
Journal:  J Wound Care       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.072

2.  Retrospective clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy.

Authors:  Penny E Campbell; Gary S Smith; Jennifer M Smith
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Vacuum-assisted closure for the treatment of degloving injuries.

Authors:  A J DeFranzo; M W Marks; L C Argenta; D G Genecov
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Recurrence rates of ischial sores in para- and tetraplegics treated with hamstring flaps: an 8-year study.

Authors:  K Tavakoli; S Rutkowski; C Cope; M Hassall; R Barnett; M Richards; J Vandervord
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  1999-09

5.  Lymphorrhea responds to negative pressure wound therapy.

Authors:  Babak Abai; Robert W Zickler; Peter J Pappas; Brajesh K Lal; Frank T Padberg
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.268

6.  Influence of topically applied antimicrobial agents on muscular microcirculation.

Authors:  Ole Goertz; Tobias Hirsch; Andrej Ring; Hans U Steinau; Adrien Daigeler; Marcus Lehnhardt; Heinz H Homann
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.539

7.  Experience with wound VAC and delayed primary closure of contaminated soft tissue injuries in Iraq.

Authors:  Brian E Leininger; Todd E Rasmussen; David L Smith; Donald H Jenkins; Christopher Coppola
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2006-11

8.  Influence of the antiseptic agents polyhexanide and octenidine on FL cells and on healing of experimental superficial aseptic wounds in piglets. A double-blind, randomised, stratified, controlled, parallel-group study.

Authors:  A Kramer; B Roth; G Müller; P Rudolph; N Klöcker
Journal:  Skin Pharmacol Physiol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.479

9.  The impact of topical lidocaine on pain level assessment during and after vacuum-assisted closure dressing changes: a double-blind, prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  Mieczyslawa Franczyk; Robert F Lohman; Jayant P Agarwal; Gita Rupani; Melinda Drum; Lawrence J Gottlieb
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Experience with the vacuum assisted closure negative pressure technique in the treatment of non-healing diabetic and dysvascular wounds.

Authors:  Michael P Clare; Timothy C Fitzgibbons; Scott T McMullen; R Colleen Stice; Dennis F Hayes; Loree Henkel
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.827

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  A solution for complex wounds: the evidence for negative pressure wound therapy with instillation.

Authors:  Ersilia L Anghel; Paul J Kim; Christopher E Attinger
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Negative pressure wound therapy-assisted dermatotraction for the closure of large open wounds in a patient with non-clostridial gas gangrene.

Authors:  Kenichiro Ishida; Mitsuhiro Noborio; Tetsuro Nishimura; Yohei Ieki; Yumiko Shimahara; Taku Sogabe; Naoki Ehara; Yuki Saoyama; Daikai Sadamitsu
Journal:  Acute Med Surg       Date:  2015-06-30

3.  Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Zhenmi Liu; Jo C Dumville; Robert J Hinchliffe; Nicky Cullum; Fran Game; Nikki Stubbs; Michael Sweeting; Frank Peinemann
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-10-17
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.