A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device

Amir Dorafshar, Mieczyslawa Franczyk, Lawrence J. Gottlieb, Kristen E. Wroblewski, Robert F. Lohman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Two methods of subatmospheric pressure wound therapy-wall suction applied to a sealed gauze dressing (GSUC) and the vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC) - were compared in hospitalized patients at University of Chicago Medical Center. Summary of Background Data: VAC therapy is widely used, but can be expensive and difficult to apply; it also fails in some patients. Methods: A randomized prospective study of 87 patients (N = 45 in the GSUC arm and N = 42 in the VAC arm) was undertaken between October 2006 and May 2008. The study comprised patients with acute wounds resulting from trauma, dehiscence, or surgery. Results: Demographics and wound characteristics were similar in both groups. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in each group. In the GSUC group, the reductions in wound surface area and volume were 4.5%/day and 8.4%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both), and in the VAC group, this was 4.9%/day and 9.8%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both). The reductions in wound surface area and volume were similar in both groups (P = 0.60 and 0.19, respectively, for the group-by-time interaction). The estimated difference (VAC - GSUC) was 0.4% (95% confidence interval: -1.0, 1.7) for wound surface area and 1.4% (95% confidence interval: -0.7, 3.5) for volume. The mean cost per day for GSUC therapy was $4.22 versus $96.51 for VAC therapy (P <0.01) and the average time required for a GSUC dressing change was 19 minutes versus 31 minutes for a VAC dressing change (P <0.01). The sum of pain intensity differences was 0.50 in the GSUC group compared with 1.73 for the VAC group (P = 0.02). Conclusions: GSUC is noninferior to VAC with respect to changes in wound volume and surface area in an acute care setting. In addition, GSUC dressings were easier to apply, less expensive, and less painful.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-84
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Plastic Surgery
Volume69
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2012

Fingerprint

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Bandages
Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals
Suction
Demography
Prospective Studies
Pressure
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pain

Keywords

  • negative pressure wound therapy
  • wound healing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. / Dorafshar, Amir; Franczyk, Mieczyslawa; Gottlieb, Lawrence J.; Wroblewski, Kristen E.; Lohman, Robert F.

In: Annals of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 69, No. 1, 07.2012, p. 79-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dorafshar, Amir ; Franczyk, Mieczyslawa ; Gottlieb, Lawrence J. ; Wroblewski, Kristen E. ; Lohman, Robert F. / A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. In: Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 69, No. 1. pp. 79-84.
@article{7a37dfe0a1064b558b9d6d014a88ad4a,
title = "A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device",
abstract = "Objective: Two methods of subatmospheric pressure wound therapy-wall suction applied to a sealed gauze dressing (GSUC) and the vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC) - were compared in hospitalized patients at University of Chicago Medical Center. Summary of Background Data: VAC therapy is widely used, but can be expensive and difficult to apply; it also fails in some patients. Methods: A randomized prospective study of 87 patients (N = 45 in the GSUC arm and N = 42 in the VAC arm) was undertaken between October 2006 and May 2008. The study comprised patients with acute wounds resulting from trauma, dehiscence, or surgery. Results: Demographics and wound characteristics were similar in both groups. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in each group. In the GSUC group, the reductions in wound surface area and volume were 4.5{\%}/day and 8.4{\%}/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both), and in the VAC group, this was 4.9{\%}/day and 9.8{\%}/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both). The reductions in wound surface area and volume were similar in both groups (P = 0.60 and 0.19, respectively, for the group-by-time interaction). The estimated difference (VAC - GSUC) was 0.4{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval: -1.0, 1.7) for wound surface area and 1.4{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval: -0.7, 3.5) for volume. The mean cost per day for GSUC therapy was $4.22 versus $96.51 for VAC therapy (P <0.01) and the average time required for a GSUC dressing change was 19 minutes versus 31 minutes for a VAC dressing change (P <0.01). The sum of pain intensity differences was 0.50 in the GSUC group compared with 1.73 for the VAC group (P = 0.02). Conclusions: GSUC is noninferior to VAC with respect to changes in wound volume and surface area in an acute care setting. In addition, GSUC dressings were easier to apply, less expensive, and less painful.",
keywords = "negative pressure wound therapy, wound healing",
author = "Amir Dorafshar and Mieczyslawa Franczyk and Gottlieb, {Lawrence J.} and Wroblewski, {Kristen E.} and Lohman, {Robert F.}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "79--84",
journal = "Annals of Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0148-7043",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device

AU - Dorafshar, Amir

AU - Franczyk, Mieczyslawa

AU - Gottlieb, Lawrence J.

AU - Wroblewski, Kristen E.

AU - Lohman, Robert F.

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - Objective: Two methods of subatmospheric pressure wound therapy-wall suction applied to a sealed gauze dressing (GSUC) and the vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC) - were compared in hospitalized patients at University of Chicago Medical Center. Summary of Background Data: VAC therapy is widely used, but can be expensive and difficult to apply; it also fails in some patients. Methods: A randomized prospective study of 87 patients (N = 45 in the GSUC arm and N = 42 in the VAC arm) was undertaken between October 2006 and May 2008. The study comprised patients with acute wounds resulting from trauma, dehiscence, or surgery. Results: Demographics and wound characteristics were similar in both groups. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in each group. In the GSUC group, the reductions in wound surface area and volume were 4.5%/day and 8.4%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both), and in the VAC group, this was 4.9%/day and 9.8%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both). The reductions in wound surface area and volume were similar in both groups (P = 0.60 and 0.19, respectively, for the group-by-time interaction). The estimated difference (VAC - GSUC) was 0.4% (95% confidence interval: -1.0, 1.7) for wound surface area and 1.4% (95% confidence interval: -0.7, 3.5) for volume. The mean cost per day for GSUC therapy was $4.22 versus $96.51 for VAC therapy (P <0.01) and the average time required for a GSUC dressing change was 19 minutes versus 31 minutes for a VAC dressing change (P <0.01). The sum of pain intensity differences was 0.50 in the GSUC group compared with 1.73 for the VAC group (P = 0.02). Conclusions: GSUC is noninferior to VAC with respect to changes in wound volume and surface area in an acute care setting. In addition, GSUC dressings were easier to apply, less expensive, and less painful.

AB - Objective: Two methods of subatmospheric pressure wound therapy-wall suction applied to a sealed gauze dressing (GSUC) and the vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC) - were compared in hospitalized patients at University of Chicago Medical Center. Summary of Background Data: VAC therapy is widely used, but can be expensive and difficult to apply; it also fails in some patients. Methods: A randomized prospective study of 87 patients (N = 45 in the GSUC arm and N = 42 in the VAC arm) was undertaken between October 2006 and May 2008. The study comprised patients with acute wounds resulting from trauma, dehiscence, or surgery. Results: Demographics and wound characteristics were similar in both groups. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in each group. In the GSUC group, the reductions in wound surface area and volume were 4.5%/day and 8.4%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both), and in the VAC group, this was 4.9%/day and 9.8%/day, respectively (P <0.001 for both). The reductions in wound surface area and volume were similar in both groups (P = 0.60 and 0.19, respectively, for the group-by-time interaction). The estimated difference (VAC - GSUC) was 0.4% (95% confidence interval: -1.0, 1.7) for wound surface area and 1.4% (95% confidence interval: -0.7, 3.5) for volume. The mean cost per day for GSUC therapy was $4.22 versus $96.51 for VAC therapy (P <0.01) and the average time required for a GSUC dressing change was 19 minutes versus 31 minutes for a VAC dressing change (P <0.01). The sum of pain intensity differences was 0.50 in the GSUC group compared with 1.73 for the VAC group (P = 0.02). Conclusions: GSUC is noninferior to VAC with respect to changes in wound volume and surface area in an acute care setting. In addition, GSUC dressings were easier to apply, less expensive, and less painful.

KW - negative pressure wound therapy

KW - wound healing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862876001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862876001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c

DO - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c

M3 - Article

C2 - 21712704

AN - SCOPUS:84862876001

VL - 69

SP - 79

EP - 84

JO - Annals of Plastic Surgery

JF - Annals of Plastic Surgery

SN - 0148-7043

IS - 1

ER -