Literature DB >> 26964825

Negative pressure wound therapy for serious dog bites of extremities: a prospective randomized trial.

Chen Rui-Feng1, Huang Li-Song2, Zheng Ji-Bo3, Jia Yi-Qing4, Liu Yu-Jie5, Shan Yi6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the emergency treatment of serious dog bite lacerations on limbs and to identify whether negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was beneficial in these instances.
METHODS: A total of 580 cases with serious limb lacerations due to dog bites were randomly divided into 2 groups. After thorough debridement, the limb lacerations of group A (n = 329) were left open. The remaining cases (n = 251) were randomly divided into 2 subgroups, group B and group C, which were treated with 125 and 75 mm Hg of continuous negative pressure, respectively. Antibiotics were only used in cases where there were systemic signs of wound infection, and were not given prophylactically. The infection rate, infection time, and healing time were analyzed.
RESULTS: The wound infection rates of groups A, B, and C were 9.1%, 4.1%, and 3.9%, respectively. The infection times of the 3 groups were 26.3 ± 11.6, 159.8 ± 13.4, and 166.4 ± 16.2 hours, respectively. The recovery times of the infection patients in the 3 groups were 19.2 ± 4.6, 13.2 ± 2.1, and 12.7 ± 2.3 days, respectively, and in the noninfection patients, the recovery times were 15.6 ± 2.7, 10.1 ± 2.3, and 10.5 ± 1.9 days, respectively. In groups B (-125 mm Hg) and C (-75 mm Hg), the infection rate, infection time, and healing time showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: Patients with serious dog bite laceration on limbs could benefit from NPWT. Compared with the traditional treatment of leaving the wounds open, NPWT reduced the infection rate and shortened recovery time. When NPWT was performed, low negative pressure (-75 mm Hg) had the same positive effects as high pressure (-125 mm Hg). Prophylactic antibiotics administration is not recommended for treating this kind of laceration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level II.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26964825     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.02.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  5 in total

1.  Ten-year analyses of the German DRG data about negative pressure wound therapy.

Authors:  Olga von Beckerath; Alexander Zapenko; Joachim Dissemond; Knut Kröger
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Followed by Delayed Primary Closure for Abdominal Wounds in Patients with Lower Gastrointestinal Perforations: Multicenter Prospective Study.

Authors:  Hirofumi Ota; Katsuki Danno; Katsuya Ohta; Tae Matsumura; Takamichi Komori; Shu Okamura; Miho Okano; Atsuhiro Ogawa; Hiroshi Tamagawa; Mamoru Uemura; Chu Matsuda; Tsunekazu Mizushima; Hirofumi Yamamoto; Riichiro Nezu; Yuichiro Doki; Hidetoshi Eguchi
Journal:  J Anus Rectum Colon       Date:  2020-07-30

3.  [Surgical treatment of bites].

Authors:  D Saul; K Dresing
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 1.154

4.  Negative pressure wound therapy for skin necrosis prevention after snakebite in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kwan Jae Kim; Jin Hong Min; Insool Yoo; Seung Whan Kim; Jinwoong Lee; Seung Ryu; Yeon Ho You; Jung Soo Park; Won Joon Jeong; Yong Chul Cho; Se Kwang Oh; Yong Nam In; Hong Joon Ahn; Chang Shin Kang; Hyunwoo Kyung; Byung Kook Lee; Dong Hun Lee; Dong Hoon Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 5.  Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds.

Authors:  Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor; Katy Newton; Jo C Dumville; Matthew L Costa; Gill Norman; Julie Bruce
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-07-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.