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

Abstract

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.