UNLABELLED: This retrospective observational study analyzed lesions with regard to healing trends and cost of materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The observed lesions were mostly postsurgical or stage IV pressure ulcers in patients with serious morbidity. The wounds were treated with a hydrokinetic fiber dressing (sorbion Sachet S, sorbion Gmbh & Co, a BSN medical company, Senden, Germany) (n = 26) or negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (n = 16). RESULTS: Primary healing trends (ie, reduction of wound size, change from necrosis to granulation tissue, and change from granulation tissue to epithelium) and secondary healing trends (ie, periwound conditions) were similar for wounds treated with the hydrokinetic dressing when compared to wounds treated with NPWT. Cost of materials was substantially lower for wounds treated with the hydrokinetic fiber dressing compared to the NPWT, with cost reductions of $1,640 (348%) to $2,242 (1794%) per wound, depending on the criteria used for the analysis. CONCLUSION: In this set of wounds, the hydrokinetic fiber dressing was shown to lead to similar healing results while providing substantial reductions of the cost of materials. For the types of wounds presented in this observational study, the hydrokinetic fiber dressing seems to be an effective substitution for negative pressure wound therapy.
UNLABELLED: This retrospective observational study analyzed lesions with regard to healing trends and cost of materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The observed lesions were mostly postsurgical or stage IV pressure ulcers in patients with serious morbidity. The wounds were treated with a hydrokinetic fiber dressing (sorbion Sachet S, sorbion Gmbh & Co, a BSN medical company, Senden, Germany) (n = 26) or negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (n = 16). RESULTS: Primary healing trends (ie, reduction of wound size, change from necrosis to granulation tissue, and change from granulation tissue to epithelium) and secondary healing trends (ie, periwound conditions) were similar for wounds treated with the hydrokinetic dressing when compared to wounds treated with NPWT. Cost of materials was substantially lower for wounds treated with the hydrokinetic fiber dressing compared to the NPWT, with cost reductions of $1,640 (348%) to $2,242 (1794%) per wound, depending on the criteria used for the analysis. CONCLUSION: In this set of wounds, the hydrokinetic fiber dressing was shown to lead to similar healing results while providing substantial reductions of the cost of materials. For the types of wounds presented in this observational study, the hydrokinetic fiber dressing seems to be an effective substitution for negative pressure wound therapy.