Dirk Halama1, Ruth Dreilich1, Bernd Lethaus1, Alexander Bartella1, Niels Christian Pausch2. 1. Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. Dr. B. Lethaus), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany. 2. Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. Dr. B. Lethaus), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: niels.pausch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Radial forearm free flaps (RFFF) are often used to replace tissue removed in head and neck surgery. In recent years, many attempts have been made to reduce donor-site morbidity and to prevent common complications such as infection, skin-graft necrosis, tendon exposure and subsequent impairment of hand function. One promising option is the use of vacuum-assisted-closure wound therapy (VAC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VAC compared with a conventional bolster dressing (CBD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was enrolled. Our study was prospective in design and included patients with a skin-grafted forearm defect after harvesting of RFFF. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned into two study arms. The predictor variable was the type of wound therapy (VAC therapy compared with CBD) and the outcome variables were (1) the size of the wound area, (2) wrist movement and (3) grip strength. Outcome variables were assessed 12 days, three weeks and eight weeks after surgery. RESULTS:Fifty patients (33 males, mean age 61.7 years [SD 15.5]; 17 females, mean age 54.7 years [SD 10.5]) were included consecutively in the study. Patients in the VAC group experienced a faster postsurgical reduction of wound area and had better wrist movement; nonetheless, the differences between the VAC group and CBD group did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, the recovery of postsurgical grip strength was significantly faster in the VAC group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to prove that VAC therapy is significantly superior to CBD for all the variable studied. Because VAC therapy has some positive effects, however, we recommend further development of this negative-pressure wound treatment, rather than the termination of its use.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Radial forearm free flaps (RFFF) are often used to replace tissue removed in head and neck surgery. In recent years, many attempts have been made to reduce donor-site morbidity and to prevent common complications such as infection, skin-graft necrosis, tendon exposure and subsequent impairment of hand function. One promising option is the use of vacuum-assisted-closure wound therapy (VAC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VAC compared with a conventional bolster dressing (CBD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was enrolled. Our study was prospective in design and included patients with a skin-grafted forearm defect after harvesting of RFFF. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned into two study arms. The predictor variable was the type of wound therapy (VAC therapy compared with CBD) and the outcome variables were (1) the size of the wound area, (2) wrist movement and (3) grip strength. Outcome variables were assessed 12 days, three weeks and eight weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Fifty patients (33 males, mean age 61.7 years [SD 15.5]; 17 females, mean age 54.7 years [SD 10.5]) were included consecutively in the study. Patients in the VAC group experienced a faster postsurgical reduction of wound area and had better wrist movement; nonetheless, the differences between the VAC group and CBD group did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, the recovery of postsurgical grip strength was significantly faster in the VAC group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to prove that VAC therapy is significantly superior to CBD for all the variable studied. Because VAC therapy has some positive effects, however, we recommend further development of this negative-pressure wound treatment, rather than the termination of its use.
Authors: Daniel G E Thiem; Fabia Siegberg; Paul Römer; Sebastian Blatt; Andreas Pabst; Diana Heimes; Bilal Al-Nawas; Peer W Kämmerer Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.964