Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Oct;94(10):1212-7.

Efficacy of portable vacuum dressing in chronic wound care: a prospective randomized control trial

Affiliations
  • PMID: 22145506
Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy of portable vacuum dressing in chronic wound care: a prospective randomized control trial

Chatchai Pruksapong. J Med Assoc Thai. 2011 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Chronic wound is a common clinical condition and often cause treatment problems. This is because chronic wound usually require extended treatment period, which result in high hospital cost. The treatment of chronic wound depends on the type of wound, the cause of wound, and the physical status of patient. Vacuum dressing has become a standard treatment of chronic wound. However in most hospitals, vacuum dressing is only used for in-patients thus, keeping the patients in hospital for this treatment. The problems with this are the long hospital stay, the high cost, and the unavailability of bed for other patients. This problem led us to develop a new treatment to help chronic wound patient. The potential solution was the use of a portable vacuum machine for out-patient. If the efficacy of the portable vacuum machine was comparable to the wall vacuum then the benefit could be transferred to out-patient.

Material and method: A Randomized control trial of two groups of patients, conventional vacuum dressing (n = 15) and portable vacuum dressing (n = 15), was done. Rate of wound healing was measured every three days and compared to represent efficacy between the two groups of patients.

Results: Thirty chronic wound patients were assigned randomly to a group of 15 for treatment with conventional wall vacuum dressing and another group of 15 for treatment with our portable vacuum dressing. Demographic data was similar in both groups (sex, age and underlying cause). Wound area was recorded at the start of the treatment on day 0 and recorded at day 3, 6, 9 and 12. It was then calculated into percentage of wound healing. Rate of wound healing was 1.57%/day in conventional group and 1.59%/day in portable group. There is no clinical difference between groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Our portable vacuum dressing method had no clinical difference from conventional wall vacuum dressing with respect to the rate of wound healing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types