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

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 o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fabio Kamamoto, Ana Lucia Munhoz Lima, Marcelo Rosa de Rezende, Rames Mattar-Junior, Marcos de Camargo Leonhardt, Kodi Edson Kojima, Carla Chineze dos Santos
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Faculdade de Medicina / USP
Series:Clinics
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322017001200737&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-9abdbac193924357ac5a7b0a83b3cad5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9abdbac193924357ac5a7b0a83b3cad52020-11-25T03:24:43ZengFaculdade de Medicina / USPClinics1980-5322721273774210.6061/clinics/2017(12)04S1807-59322017001200737A 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 trialFabio KamamotoAna Lucia Munhoz LimaMarcelo Rosa de RezendeRames Mattar-JuniorMarcos de Camargo LeonhardtKodi Edson KojimaCarla Chineze dos SantosOBJECTIVES: 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.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322017001200737&lng=en&tlng=enNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyWound HealingWounds and InjuriesCost Savings
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Fabio Kamamoto
Ana Lucia Munhoz Lima
Marcelo Rosa de Rezende
Rames Mattar-Junior
Marcos de Camargo Leonhardt
Kodi Edson Kojima
Carla Chineze dos Santos
spellingShingle Fabio Kamamoto
Ana Lucia Munhoz Lima
Marcelo Rosa de Rezende
Rames Mattar-Junior
Marcos de Camargo Leonhardt
Kodi Edson Kojima
Carla Chineze dos Santos
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
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries
Cost Savings
author_facet Fabio Kamamoto
Ana Lucia Munhoz Lima
Marcelo Rosa de Rezende
Rames Mattar-Junior
Marcos de Camargo Leonhardt
Kodi Edson Kojima
Carla Chineze dos Santos
author_sort Fabio Kamamoto
title 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
title_short 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_sort 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
publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
series Clinics
issn 1980-5322
description 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.
topic Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries
Cost Savings
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322017001200737&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT fabiokamamoto anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT analuciamunhozlima anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT marcelorosaderezende anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT ramesmattarjunior anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT marcosdecamargoleonhardt anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT kodiedsonkojima anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT carlachinezedossantos anewlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT fabiokamamoto newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT analuciamunhozlima newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT marcelorosaderezende newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT ramesmattarjunior newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT marcosdecamargoleonhardt newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT kodiedsonkojima newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
AT carlachinezedossantos newlowcostnegativepressurewoundtherapyversusacommerciallyavailabletherapydevicewidelyusedtotreatcomplextraumaticinjuriesaprospectiverandomizednoninferioritytrial
_version_ 1724600409605013504