Randomized clinical study to compare negative pressure wound therapy with simultaneous saline irrigation and traditional negative pressure wound therapy for complex foot infections
- PMID: 31245901
- PMCID: PMC6973291
- DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12741
Randomized clinical study to compare negative pressure wound therapy with simultaneous saline irrigation and traditional negative pressure wound therapy for complex foot infections
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.
© 2019 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of by the Wound Healing Society.
Figures
References
-
- Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1704–10. - PubMed
-
- Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum‐assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 631–6. - PubMed
-
- Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, Eichbaum Q, Ingber D, Orgill DP. Vacuum‐assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 1086–96 discussion 97‐8. - PubMed
-
- Davis KE, Lafontaine J, Bills J, Noble D, Wight‐Carter M, Oni G, et al. The comparison of two negative‐pressure wound therapy systems in a porcine model of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen 2013; 21: 740–5. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
