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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Kamamoto, Fabio
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Lima, Ana Lucia Munhoz, Rezende, Marcelo Rosa de, Mattar-Junior, Rames, Leonhardt, Marcos de Camargo, Kojima, Kodi Edson, Santos, Carla Chineze dos
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/142551
Resumo: 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.
id USP-19_4d1ab11ed276ec43fe3a5a9285bc4e2d
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/142551
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling 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 trialNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyWound HealingWounds and InjuriesCost SavingsOBJECTIVES: 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.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/14255110.6061/clinics/2017(12)04Clinics; Vol. 72 No. 12 (2017); 737-742Clinics; v. 72 n. 12 (2017); 737-742Clinics; Vol. 72 Núm. 12 (2017); 737-7421980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/142551/137584Copyright (c) 2018 Clinicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKamamoto, FabioLima, Ana Lucia MunhozRezende, Marcelo Rosa deMattar-Junior, RamesLeonhardt, Marcos de CamargoKojima, Kodi EdsonSantos, Carla Chineze dos2018-01-23T10:06:01Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/142551Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2018-01-23T10:06:01Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv 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 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
spellingShingle 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
Kamamoto, Fabio
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries
Cost Savings
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 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
author Kamamoto, Fabio
author_facet Kamamoto, Fabio
Lima, Ana Lucia Munhoz
Rezende, Marcelo Rosa de
Mattar-Junior, Rames
Leonhardt, Marcos de Camargo
Kojima, Kodi Edson
Santos, Carla Chineze dos
author_role author
author2 Lima, Ana Lucia Munhoz
Rezende, Marcelo Rosa de
Mattar-Junior, Rames
Leonhardt, Marcos de Camargo
Kojima, Kodi Edson
Santos, Carla Chineze dos
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Kamamoto, Fabio
Lima, Ana Lucia Munhoz
Rezende, Marcelo Rosa de
Mattar-Junior, Rames
Leonhardt, Marcos de Camargo
Kojima, Kodi Edson
Santos, Carla Chineze dos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries
Cost Savings
topic Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Wound Healing
Wounds and Injuries
Cost Savings
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.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/142551
10.6061/clinics/2017(12)04
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/142551
identifier_str_mv 10.6061/clinics/2017(12)04
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/142551/137584
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Clinics
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Clinics
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 72 No. 12 (2017); 737-742
Clinics; v. 72 n. 12 (2017); 737-742
Clinics; Vol. 72 Núm. 12 (2017); 737-742
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222763631247360