Hyperbaric oxygen therapy or negative pressure therapy: what is the best form of treatment for patients with Fournier Syndrome? A systematic review of the literature

• Autor(a) principal: Cirino, Geovana Aparecida dos Reis
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Paiva, Daniel Felipe Fernandes, Azevedo, André Herácleo de
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Research, Society and Development
• Texto Completo: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/34558
• topic: Fournier Gangrene; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Tissue Expansion Devices; Systematic review.; Gangrena de Fournier; Oxigenoterapia Hiperbárica; Dispositivos de Expansión Tisular; Revisión sistemática.; Gangrena de Fournier; Oxigenoterapia Hiperbárica; Dispositivos para Expansão de Tecidos; Revisão sistemática.

Introduction: Fournier Syndrome can cause a series of serious organic dysfunctions, including death. Its perineal lesions are characterized by the presence of necrotic tissue and local or adjacent deformities. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy and negative pressure therapy are adjuvant techniques capable of minimizing the damage caused by the disease. Objective: To verify which technique is more effective in reducing the healing time of wounds from Fournier Syndrome. Method: Articles were collected from Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase databases using the search strategy: (“Fournier Gangrene'' AND “Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy” AND “Hyperbaric Oxygenation”). Inclusion criteria: studies that addressed male patients and the use of HBOT or VAC techniques in Fournier Syndrome. Exclusion criteria: unavailable studies in their entirety, which involved transsexual patients, who interrupted treatment with such techniques or who underwent other additional procedures to close the lesions. The revision was registered in PROSPERO under code “CRD42022314910”. Results and discussions: 14 articles were included in this study, discussing aspects inherent to healing time and hospital stay, risk factors, and patient's quality of life. The number of individuals undergoing HBOT exceeded those undergoing VAC, and a small group still used both techniques. Conclusion: Both techniques provide multiple benefits to the treatment of the disease. However, it is not possible to impossible to choose one more effective than the other due to limitations found in the study andn between their mechanisms of action. Conclusion: Both techniques provide multiple benefits to the treatment of the disease. However, it is not possible to choose one more effective than the other due to some limitations in the study, as well as the particularities of the patients and the techniques in question.