Zhiqiang Li1, Wenjie Wu1, Shujiang Liu1, Yusheng Hao2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, The People's Hospital of Cangzhou, Cangzhou 061000, China. 2. Department of Orthopedics, The People's Hospital of Cangzhou, Cangzhou 061000, China. Electronic address: haoyushenhb@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effect of vacuum sealing drainage in dermatoplasty of large area of cutaneous defects in comparison to conventional treatment. METHODS:80 patients with large area of cutaneous defects were enrolled in this study, and they had received superficial thickness dermatoplasty. Then these patients were randomly divided into two groups based on follow-up treatments: vacuum sealing drainage (defined as group A, 40 cases) and conventional treatment (defined as group B, 40 cases). After operation, all the patients received similar hospital stay, antibiotics administration, swelling elimination and wound closure in these two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in terms of the baseline characteristics between the two groups, including areas of cutaneous defects. Compared with conventional treatment group, the healing time of dermatoplasty was reduced significantly in vacuum sealing drainage group. Meanwhile, the rate of survival of dermatoplasty was better, and the rate of wound infection was lower in vacuum sealing drainage group than conventional treatment group. CONCLUSION:Vacuum sealing drainage is effective in treatment with large area of cutaneous defects combined with dermatoplasty, which had better clinical outcomes than conventional therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effect of vacuum sealing drainage in dermatoplasty of large area of cutaneous defects in comparison to conventional treatment. METHODS: 80 patients with large area of cutaneous defects were enrolled in this study, and they had received superficial thickness dermatoplasty. Then these patients were randomly divided into two groups based on follow-up treatments: vacuum sealing drainage (defined as group A, 40 cases) and conventional treatment (defined as group B, 40 cases). After operation, all the patients received similar hospital stay, antibiotics administration, swelling elimination and wound closure in these two groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in terms of the baseline characteristics between the two groups, including areas of cutaneous defects. Compared with conventional treatment group, the healing time of dermatoplasty was reduced significantly in vacuum sealing drainage group. Meanwhile, the rate of survival of dermatoplasty was better, and the rate of wound infection was lower in vacuum sealing drainage group than conventional treatment group. CONCLUSION: Vacuum sealing drainage is effective in treatment with large area of cutaneous defects combined with dermatoplasty, which had better clinical outcomes than conventional therapy.