DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20211440

A comparative study of negative pressure dressing and conventional dressing in lower limb ulcers

Vishal S. Shah, Narendra K. Prajapati, Dhruven H. Ponkiya

Abstract


Background: Lower limb ulcer is a common disease among the Indian population with a prevalence of approximately 1% to 2% which is slightly higher in the older population. There are various modalities of treatment with the main aim being early wound healing. This study is done to compare the results of negative pressure dressing and conventional dressing in lower limb ulcers.

Methods: This study, done at the Department of Surgery, G. K. General Hospital and Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhuj, from October 2017 to September 2018 is a prospective study. A total of 120 patients were randomly divided in two group comprising of 60 patients each. The patients in Group A were treated with negative pressure dressing while those in Group B were treated with conventional dressing. The patients were assessed, in both test and control groups, with parameters like appearance of granulation tissue, bacterial clearance and wound healing.

Results: 80% of the patients belonged to the age group of 41-60 years while others were less than 40 years. We observed that in Group A majority of the patients had wound healing in 11-40 days while in Group B majority patients took 31-60 days for their wounds to be healed.

Conclusions: We conclude that negative pressure dressing is more efficient as compared to conventional dressing for healing of lower limb ulcers, enabling a shorter hospital stay and early resumption of daily activities to the patient.

 


Keywords


Negative pressure dressing, Conventional dressing, Ulcers, Granulation tissue

Full Text:

PDF

References


Frykberg RG, Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care. 2015;4(9):560-82.

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

Chariker ME, Jeter KF, Tintle TE, Bottsford JE. Effective management of incisional and cutaneous fistulae with closed suction wound drainage. Contemp Surg. 1989;34:59-63.

Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:563-76.

Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC. Nonsurgical modalities to enhance healing and care of soft tissue wounds. J South Orthop Assoc. 1997;6:279-88.

Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553–60.

Priyatham K, Rao YP, Satyanavamani DG, Poornima D. Comparison of vacuum assisted closure vs conventional moist dressing in the management of chronic wounds. IOSR-JDMS. 2016;15(2):35-49.

Janugade HB, Chabbra RS, Das AG, Surushe A, Saygaonkar H. Outcomes of VAC versus conventional dressings in patients with lower limb ulcer. Int Surg J. 2018;5(5):1792-6.

Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553-62.

Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Diabetic foot study consortium negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1704-10.