A new low-cost negative-pressure wound therapy versus a commercially available therapy device widely used to treat complex traumatic injuries: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
13
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
Autores
Citação
CLINICS, v.72, n.12, p.737-742, 2017
Resumo
OBJECTIVES: Negative-pressure wound therapy has been widely adopted to reduce the complexity of treating a broad range of acute and chronic wounds. However, its cost is high. The objective of this study was to evaluate the following two different methods of negative-pressure wound therapy in terms of healing time: a low-cost method of negative-pressure wound therapy (a pressure stabilizer device connected to a hospital wall-vacuum system with a gauze-sealed dressing, USP) and the standard of care (vacuum-assisted closure, VAC). METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, unblinded trial. Patients admitted with complex injuries to a trauma center in a public referral hospital who were indicated for orthopedic surgery were randomized to a USP or VAC group. The primary outcome was the time required to achieve a ""ready for surgery condition'', which was defined as a wound bed with healthy granulation tissue and without necrosis or purulent secretion. Wound bed area contraction, granulation tissue growth and the direct costs of the dressings were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Variation in area and granulation tissue growth were essentially the same between the systems, and healing time was equal between the groups (p= 0.379). In both systems, serial debridement increased wound area (p= 0.934), and granulation tissue was also increased (p= 0.408). The mean treatment cost was US$ 15.15 in the USP group and US$ 872.59 in the VAC group. CONCLUSIONS: For treating complex traumatic injuries, USP was non-inferior to and less expensive than VAC.
Palavras-chave
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy, Wound Healing, Wounds and Injuries, Cost Savings
Referências
- Chaput B, 2015, PRS-GLOB OPEN, V3, DOI 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000347
- Dorafshar AH, 2012, ANN PLAS SURG, V69, P79, DOI 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c
- Engeland CG, 2009, BRAIN BEHAV IMMUN, V23, P629, DOI 10.1016/j.bbi.2008.12.001
- Fenn CH, 2001, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V54, P348, DOI 10.1054/bjps.2000.3552
- Kamamoto F, 2010, REV BRAS CIR PLAST, V25, P74
- Kim JJ, 2017, PRS-GLOB OPEN, V5, DOI 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001211
- Mansoor J, 2015, INT WOUND J, V12, P559, DOI 10.1111/iwj.12164
- Mirazimov B M, 1966, Ortop Travmatol Protez, V27, P19
- Moues C M, 2005, J Wound Care, V14, P224
- Runkel N, 2011, INJURY, V42, pS1, DOI 10.1016/S0020-1383(11)00041-6
- Wehrens KME, 2016, ADV SKIN WOUND CARE, V29, P254, DOI 10.1097/01.ASW.0000481179.88936.d4
- Wong LK, 2006, SOUTH MED J, V99, P628, DOI 10.1097/01.smj.0000217111.35160.09
- Yang Charlie C, 2006, J Surg Orthop Adv, V15, P19
- Zannis J, 2009, ANN PLAS SURG, V62, P407, DOI [10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181881629, 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181881b29]