OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) and conventional dressings in the wound therapy of Fournier's gangrene (FG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study evaluated 54 patients, retrospectively. Following initial removal of necrotic and devitalized tissue, in Group I patients the wounds were covered with conventional antiseptic dressings and patients continued to be treated with conventional dressings. In Group II patients VAC therapy was initiated. The collected data were compared between groups. RESULTS: The difference between two groups were statistically significant in terms of number of daily dressing (group I: 2, group II: 0,5), VAS (group I: 8, group II: 5), number of daily analgesics (group I: 4, group II: 2), number of daily narcotic analgesics (group I: 1, group II: 0), duration of mobilization per day (group I: 40, group II: 73 minutes) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not determine that a VAC therapy is better than conventional dressings in terms of clinical outcome. However, vacuum dressing appears an effective and successful method, which offers fewer dressing changes, less pain, and greater mobility comparing to conventional dressings in the management of FG patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) and conventional dressings in the wound therapy of Fournier's gangrene (FG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study evaluated 54 patients, retrospectively. Following initial removal of necrotic and devitalized tissue, in Group I patients the wounds were covered with conventional antiseptic dressings and patients continued to be treated with conventional dressings. In Group II patients VAC therapy was initiated. The collected data were compared between groups. RESULTS: The difference between two groups were statistically significant in terms of number of daily dressing (group I: 2, group II: 0,5), VAS (group I: 8, group II: 5), number of daily analgesics (group I: 4, group II: 2), number of daily narcotic analgesics (group I: 1, group II: 0), duration of mobilization per day (group I: 40, group II: 73 minutes) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not determine that a VAC therapy is better than conventional dressings in terms of clinical outcome. However, vacuum dressing appears an effective and successful method, which offers fewer dressing changes, less pain, and greater mobility comparing to conventional dressings in the management of FG patients.