DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20205016

Comparative study of negative pressure wound therapy with moist gauze dressings in the treatment of leg ulcer wounds

Sridhar J., Arla Sai Varsha, Karthick S., Ravishankar P., Shailesh .

Abstract


Background: Leg ulcers are one of the most commonly encountered cases in any surgical out-patient department. Causes of leg ulcers vary from traumatic, diabetic, chronic venous insufficiency, trophic, hypertensive, and so on. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy compared with moist gauze dressings to treat foot ulcer wounds.

Methods: Patients presenting with leg ulcers to the department of general surgery, VMKVC hospital. 50 randomly selected patients will be assigned to the study group based on their willingness for undergoing topical negative pressure dressing and 50 patients to the moist gauze dressing, control group.

Results: Most of the ulcer (45.4%) got healed by secondary intention through VAC. dressing. treating DFU with VAC therapy results in a better graft take rate (p=0.05) when compared to standard wound care. There is a statistically significant association found between interventions and the area of the ulcer on day 28.

Conclusions: While moist gauze dressing can be applied to any wound surfaces, vacuum dressing is limited to certain surfaces and certain wounds exposing tendon sheath, blood vessels, bones, aponeurosis cannot be treated by vacuum dressing. The frequency of dressing is lower with continuous vacuum suction dressing, while moist gauze has to be changed twice a day to obtain favorable results.


Keywords


Negative pressure wound dressing, Diabetic foot ulcers, Moist wound dressing, Vacuum assisted closure, wound therapy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brigham PA, McLoughlin E. Burn incidence and medical care use in the United States: estimate, trends, and data sources. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1996;17:95-107.

Markova A, Mostow EN. US skin disease assessment: ulcer and wound care. Dermatol Clin. 2012;30:107-11.

Ovington LG. Bacterial toxins and wound healing. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(7A suppl):8.

Mustoe T. Understanding chronic wounds: a unifying hypothesis on their pathogenesis and implications for therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;187:65.

Sisco M, Mustoe TA. Animal models of ischemic wound healing: toward an approximation of human chronic cutaneous ulcers in rabbit and rat. Methods Mol Med. 2003;78:55-65.

Fleck CA. Differentiating MMPs, biofilm, endotoxins, exotoxins, and cytokines. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006;19:77.

Dabiri G, Di Persio M. Matrix metalloproteinases. In: Falabella A, Kirsner R, Boca RFL, eds. Wound healing. United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis; 2005: 49-59.

Buckley C. Why does chronic inflammation persist: an unexpected role of fibroblasts. Immunol Lett. 2011;138:12-4.

Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453: 314-21.

Li J, Chen J, Kirsner R. Pathophysiology of acute wound healing. Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:9-18.

Bishop A. Role of oxygen in wound healing. J Wound Care. 2008;17:399-402.

Siana JE, Rex S, Gottrup F. The effect of cigarette smoking on wound healing. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1989;23:207-9.

Chan LK, Withey S, Butler PE. Smoking and wound healing problems in reduction mammaplasty: is the introduction of urine nicotine testing justified?. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:111-5.

Arnold M, Barbul A. Nutrition and wound healing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7 Suppl):42S-58S.

Campos AC, Groth AK, Branco AB. Assessment and nutritional aspects of wound healing. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008;11:281-8.

Joseph E, Hamori CA, Bergman S. A prospective randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus standard therapy of chronic nonhealing wounds. Wounds. 2000;12(3):60-7.

Sayyar M. Comparison of vacuum-assisted closure versus conventional dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. KJMS. 2015;8(2):226-30.

Thomas S. Surgical dressings and wound management. Hinesburg, VT: Kestrel Health Information Inc; 2012: 79-106.

Kaya AZ, Turani N, Akyuz M. The effectiveness of a hydrogel dressing compared with standard management of pressure ulcers. J Wound Care. 2005;14:42-4.

Varghese MC, Balin AK, Carter DM, Caldwell D. Local environment of chronic wounds under synthetic dressings. Arch Dermatol. 1986;122:52-7.