Arun Kumaar1, Arun H Shanthappa1, Prabhu Ethiraj1. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research, Kolar, IND.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthopedic surgeons face a difficult task in treating serious open fractures, which usually result in complications, morbidity, and even amputation. Compound fracture wounds were traditionally treated with a standard saline dressing. To avoid infection and problems during therapy, several studies found that open fractures require early skeletal stability as well as soft tissue repair. In favoring the above fact vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) is now undergoing a paradigm shift. With this background, this study aimed to compare the effects of VAC dressing versus standard wound dressing on compound fracture wounds. METHODOLOGY: This study has been conducted as a single-blind randomized control trial among 128 patients who got admitted to the Department of Orthopedics, R L Jalappa Hospital attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Karnataka, India from August 2019 to November 2021. The study participants were randomly allotted into two groups negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard wound therapy (SWT) consisting of 64 participants in each group. VAC dressing was used on group NPWT, while normal saline wound dressing was used on group SWT. Both groups were followed up for a month after their discharge from the hospital. Frequency in dressing changes wound healing time, infection presence, and hospitalization days were all recorded and compared over one month. The data collection was done using questionnaires and the statistical analysis was done with SPSS version 21 (Chicago, IL: IBM Corp.). RESULTS: There was a statically significant difference favoring group NPWT compared to group SWT with a hospital stay, number of dressings required, wound size reduction, wound healing time, and deep infection rate (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of NPWT speeds up the healing of compound fracture wounds significantly. It is affordable and can be used as a substitute in resource-constrained areas to reduce infection and manage open fracture wounds quickly.
BACKGROUND: Orthopedic surgeons face a difficult task in treating serious open fractures, which usually result in complications, morbidity, and even amputation. Compound fracture wounds were traditionally treated with a standard saline dressing. To avoid infection and problems during therapy, several studies found that open fractures require early skeletal stability as well as soft tissue repair. In favoring the above fact vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) is now undergoing a paradigm shift. With this background, this study aimed to compare the effects of VAC dressing versus standard wound dressing on compound fracture wounds. METHODOLOGY: This study has been conducted as a single-blind randomized control trial among 128 patients who got admitted to the Department of Orthopedics, R L Jalappa Hospital attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Karnataka, India from August 2019 to November 2021. The study participants were randomly allotted into two groups negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard wound therapy (SWT) consisting of 64 participants in each group. VAC dressing was used on group NPWT, while normal saline wound dressing was used on group SWT. Both groups were followed up for a month after their discharge from the hospital. Frequency in dressing changes wound healing time, infection presence, and hospitalization days were all recorded and compared over one month. The data collection was done using questionnaires and the statistical analysis was done with SPSS version 21 (Chicago, IL: IBM Corp.). RESULTS: There was a statically significant difference favoring group NPWT compared to group SWT with a hospital stay, number of dressings required, wound size reduction, wound healing time, and deep infection rate (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of NPWT speeds up the healing of compound fracture wounds significantly. It is affordable and can be used as a substitute in resource-constrained areas to reduce infection and manage open fracture wounds quickly.
Authors: E Krug; L Berg; C Lee; D Hudson; H Birke-Sorensen; M Depoorter; R Dunn; S Jeffery; F Duteille; A Bruhin; C Caravaggi; M Chariker; C Dowsett; F Ferreira; J M Francos Martínez; G Grudzien; S Ichioka; R Ingemansson; M Malmsjo; P Rome; S Vig; N Runkel; R Martin; J Smith Journal: Injury Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Juul Achten; Nick R Parsons; Julie Bruce; Stavros Petrou; Elizabeth Tutton; Keith Willett; Sarah E Lamb; Matthew L Costa Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.692