A comparative study of vacuum assisted closure dressing with conventional dressings in the management of infected wounds

Karanvir Singh, Gurlal Singh Puar, Vikas Kakkar, Rana Ranjit Singh


Background: In the whole world including India, incidence of infected wounds is increasing day by day. Trauma is the most common cause of wounds and number of other factors contribute to wound infection there on. Wound management and care thus carry an important role for such patients in the form of dressings, debridement etc. Many conventional dressings are being used these days, but vacuum assisted closure (VAC) dressing as widely gained acceptance now.

Methods: Our study was conducted on 60 patients divided in 2 groups of 30 each to compare VAC dressing with conventional dressings.

Results: There was significant difference in total hospital stay, no. of debridement done, granulation tissue fill up and graft take up in both groups, for example, the average hospital stay in group A was 21.8±7.61 and in group B was 26.47±9.55.

Conclusions: So, VAC dressing was found to be more beneficial and patient friendly with lesser hospital stay and thus lesser cost than conventional dressings.


Vacuum assisted closure dressing, Conventional dressings, Wounds

Full Text:



Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, Krahn JF, Peinemann F, Lange S. Negative pressure wound therapy. A vacuum of evidence. Arch Surg. 2008;143(2):189-96.

Sandoz H. Negative pressure wound therapy: clinical utility. Chronic Wound Care Manag Res. 2015;2:71-9.

Sia SF, Fong EP.. Modified vacuum assisted closure. JUMMEC. 2006;9(2):24-7.

Calvin M. Cutaneous wound repair. Wounds. 1998;10(1):12-32.

Heinzelmann M, Scott M, Lam T. Factors predisposing to bacterial invasion and infection. Am J Surg. 2002;183(2):179-90.

The Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme. Surveillance of Surgical Site Infection in English Hospitals: a national surveillance and quality improvement programme. Public Health Laboratory Service. 2002.

Plowman R. The socioeconomic burden of hospital acquired infection. Euro Surveill. 2000;5(4):49-50.

Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Goossens A, De Vos R, Legemate D. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003554.

Singh A, Halder S, Menon GR, Chumber S, Misra MC et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on hydrocolloid occlusive dressing versus conventional gauze dressing in the healing of chronic wounds. Asian J Surg. 2004;27(4):326-32.

Winter GD. Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelization of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. Nature. 1962;193:293-4.

Samson D, Lefevre F, Aronson N. Wound-healing technologies: low-level laser and vacuum-assisted closure. Evidence Report/technology Assessment (Summary). 2004;12(111):1-6.

Pham C, Middleton P, Maddern G. Vacuum assisted closure for the Management of Wounds: An Accelerated Systematic Review. Adelaide Aust Saf Effic Regist N Interv Proc-Surg. 2003.

Fisher A, Brady B. Vacuum assisted wound closure therapy. Issues Emerg Health Technol. 2003;(44):1-6.

Medical Advisory Secretariat. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee, Vacuum Assisted Closure Therapy for Wound. Closure. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care; 2004;1-38.

Shankar M, Ramesh B, Kumar DR, Niranjan BM. Wound healing and its importance-a review. Der Pharmacologia Sinica. 2014;1(1):24-30.

Nagaraj S, Hosmani R, Shankar JC. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus Conventional Wound Therapy in Large Wounds. Int J Sci Res Public. 2015;5(5):1-10.

Priyatham K, Rao YP, Satyanavamani G. Comparison of Vacuum Assisted Closure vs Conventional Moist Dressing in the management of chronic wounds. IOSR-JDMS. 2016;15(2):35-49.

Koppad SN, Badiger S, Desai M. Comparative analysis of the efficacy of topical negative pressure dressing with conventional wound dressing in wound healing. Int Surg J. 2016;3:1287-91.

Richhariya A, Amarjot S, Richhariya M. A study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy vis-à-vis saline moist gauze dressing. Indian j applied res. 2017;7(11):281-2.