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

Authors

  • Fabio Kamamoto Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Pesquisador
  • Ana Lucia Munhoz Lima Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Departamento de Controle de Infeccao Hospitalar
  • Marcelo Rosa de Rezende Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Departamento de Microcirurgia
  • Rames Mattar-Junior Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia
  • Marcos de Camargo Leonhardt Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia
  • Kodi Edson Kojima Universidade de São Paulo; Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia
  • Carla Chineze dos Santos Consultor Independente

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(12)04

Keywords:

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy, Wound Healing, Wounds and Injuries, Cost Savings

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Kamamoto, F., Lima, A. L. M., Rezende, M. R. de, Mattar-Junior, R., Leonhardt, M. de C., Kojima, K. E., & Santos, C. C. dos. (2017). 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. Clinics, 72(12), 737-742. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(12)04