Ashraf H Mohammed1, Somia Ali Hamed2, Abdelrhman Ismail Abdelghany3. 1. Cairo University, Egypt; Badr University in Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: ashraf.hassan@buc.edu.eg. 2. October 6 University, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Badr University in Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Negative pressure therapy plays an important role in the healing process of different types of wounds. AIM OF THE STUDY: this study aimed to compare between modified and traditional method of vacuum wound closure for chronic wounds. SUBJECTS: Thirty participants with chronic ulcers completed the study, their ages ranged from 47 to 65 years, from Benha city, divided randomly into two groups, it was carried out from December 2017 to March 2019. METHODS: The first group treated by the traditional method of vacuum assisted wound closure for 8 weeks; dressing was changed 3 times weekly, at 125 mmHg. The mode of 2 min off and 5 min on was used. The second group treated by the modified method by switching off the device at the fifth week and applying traditional dressing for one week then ended by three weeks of vacuum wound closure. Assessment was performed before and after the study. Student t-test was used for analysis. RESULT: Paired t-test showed a significant improvement in wound surface area as well as volume for pre and post treatment in each group (p < 0.05). On the other hand independent t-test revealed a non-significant difference between the two groups pre as well as post treatment (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between the two programs on healing of chronic ulcers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT03701152 - at Clinicaltrials.gov.
BACKGROUND: Negative pressure therapy plays an important role in the healing process of different types of wounds. AIM OF THE STUDY: this study aimed to compare between modified and traditional method of vacuum wound closure for chronic wounds. SUBJECTS: Thirty participants with chronic ulcers completed the study, their ages ranged from 47 to 65 years, from Benha city, divided randomly into two groups, it was carried out from December 2017 to March 2019. METHODS: The first group treated by the traditional method of vacuum assisted wound closure for 8 weeks; dressing was changed 3 times weekly, at 125 mmHg. The mode of 2 min off and 5 min on was used. The second group treated by the modified method by switching off the device at the fifth week and applying traditional dressing for one week then ended by three weeks of vacuum wound closure. Assessment was performed before and after the study. Student t-test was used for analysis. RESULT: Paired t-test showed a significant improvement in wound surface area as well as volume for pre and post treatment in each group (p < 0.05). On the other hand independent t-test revealed a non-significant difference between the two groups pre as well as post treatment (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between the two programs on healing of chronic ulcers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT03701152 - at Clinicaltrials.gov.