A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device: A supplementary subgroup analysis of infected wounds

Amir Dorafshar, Mieczyslawa Franczyk, Laurel Karian, Chad Teven, Kristen Wroblewski, Lawrence J. Gottlieb, Robert F. Lohman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction. Subatmospheric pressure wound therapy (SAWT) is commonly used to manage infected wounds. However, this practice remains controversial because the safety and efficacy of the technique has not been carefully documented. Methods. The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of a sealed gauze dressing with wall suction applied (GSUC) compared to vacuum assisted-closure (VAC), both soaked with topical antimicrobials. Subjects included 31 hospitalized patients with acutely infected wounds compared with 56 patients with noninfected wounds. Results. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in both infected and noninfected groups; there was no significant difference in the rate of change observed in the GSUC vs the VAC arms of the study. In the infected group, the reduction in wound surface area was 4.4% per day for GSUC and 4.8% per day for VAC. Wound volume was 7.8% per day for GSUC, and 9.7% per day for VAC (P <0.001 for all). Evidence of wound infection in all patients, regardless of treatment group, resolved by 96 hours of onset of treatment, and there were no complications specifically related to the use of a sealed dressing over infected wounds. Conclusion. Gauze dressing with wall suction and VAC therapy can be used in selected acute, infected wounds and both methods of treatment appear to be similarly effective for reducing wound surface area and volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)121-130
Number of pages10
JournalWounds
Volume25
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Bandages
Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics
Suction
Safety
Wound Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medical–Surgical

Cite this

A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device : A supplementary subgroup analysis of infected wounds. / Dorafshar, Amir; Franczyk, Mieczyslawa; Karian, Laurel; Teven, Chad; Wroblewski, Kristen; Gottlieb, Lawrence J.; Lohman, Robert F.

In: Wounds, Vol. 25, No. 5, 05.2013, p. 121-130.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dorafshar, Amir ; Franczyk, Mieczyslawa ; Karian, Laurel ; Teven, Chad ; Wroblewski, Kristen ; Gottlieb, Lawrence J. ; Lohman, Robert F. / A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device : A supplementary subgroup analysis of infected wounds. In: Wounds. 2013 ; Vol. 25, No. 5. pp. 121-130.
@article{15632f0a24dd4346b34fde1c36cc8326,
title = "A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device: A supplementary subgroup analysis of infected wounds",
abstract = "Introduction. Subatmospheric pressure wound therapy (SAWT) is commonly used to manage infected wounds. However, this practice remains controversial because the safety and efficacy of the technique has not been carefully documented. Methods. The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of a sealed gauze dressing with wall suction applied (GSUC) compared to vacuum assisted-closure (VAC), both soaked with topical antimicrobials. Subjects included 31 hospitalized patients with acutely infected wounds compared with 56 patients with noninfected wounds. Results. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in both infected and noninfected groups; there was no significant difference in the rate of change observed in the GSUC vs the VAC arms of the study. In the infected group, the reduction in wound surface area was 4.4{\%} per day for GSUC and 4.8{\%} per day for VAC. Wound volume was 7.8{\%} per day for GSUC, and 9.7{\%} per day for VAC (P <0.001 for all). Evidence of wound infection in all patients, regardless of treatment group, resolved by 96 hours of onset of treatment, and there were no complications specifically related to the use of a sealed dressing over infected wounds. Conclusion. Gauze dressing with wall suction and VAC therapy can be used in selected acute, infected wounds and both methods of treatment appear to be similarly effective for reducing wound surface area and volume.",
author = "Amir Dorafshar and Mieczyslawa Franczyk and Laurel Karian and Chad Teven and Kristen Wroblewski and Gottlieb, {Lawrence J.} and Lohman, {Robert F.}",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "121--130",
journal = "Wounds",
issn = "1044-7946",
publisher = "HMP Communications",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

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

T2 - A supplementary subgroup analysis of infected wounds

AU - Dorafshar, Amir

AU - Franczyk, Mieczyslawa

AU - Karian, Laurel

AU - Teven, Chad

AU - Wroblewski, Kristen

AU - Gottlieb, Lawrence J.

AU - Lohman, Robert F.

PY - 2013/5

Y1 - 2013/5

N2 - Introduction. Subatmospheric pressure wound therapy (SAWT) is commonly used to manage infected wounds. However, this practice remains controversial because the safety and efficacy of the technique has not been carefully documented. Methods. The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of a sealed gauze dressing with wall suction applied (GSUC) compared to vacuum assisted-closure (VAC), both soaked with topical antimicrobials. Subjects included 31 hospitalized patients with acutely infected wounds compared with 56 patients with noninfected wounds. Results. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in both infected and noninfected groups; there was no significant difference in the rate of change observed in the GSUC vs the VAC arms of the study. In the infected group, the reduction in wound surface area was 4.4% per day for GSUC and 4.8% per day for VAC. Wound volume was 7.8% per day for GSUC, and 9.7% per day for VAC (P <0.001 for all). Evidence of wound infection in all patients, regardless of treatment group, resolved by 96 hours of onset of treatment, and there were no complications specifically related to the use of a sealed dressing over infected wounds. Conclusion. Gauze dressing with wall suction and VAC therapy can be used in selected acute, infected wounds and both methods of treatment appear to be similarly effective for reducing wound surface area and volume.

AB - Introduction. Subatmospheric pressure wound therapy (SAWT) is commonly used to manage infected wounds. However, this practice remains controversial because the safety and efficacy of the technique has not been carefully documented. Methods. The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of a sealed gauze dressing with wall suction applied (GSUC) compared to vacuum assisted-closure (VAC), both soaked with topical antimicrobials. Subjects included 31 hospitalized patients with acutely infected wounds compared with 56 patients with noninfected wounds. Results. There were significant reductions in wound surface area and volume in both infected and noninfected groups; there was no significant difference in the rate of change observed in the GSUC vs the VAC arms of the study. In the infected group, the reduction in wound surface area was 4.4% per day for GSUC and 4.8% per day for VAC. Wound volume was 7.8% per day for GSUC, and 9.7% per day for VAC (P <0.001 for all). Evidence of wound infection in all patients, regardless of treatment group, resolved by 96 hours of onset of treatment, and there were no complications specifically related to the use of a sealed dressing over infected wounds. Conclusion. Gauze dressing with wall suction and VAC therapy can be used in selected acute, infected wounds and both methods of treatment appear to be similarly effective for reducing wound surface area and volume.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84882774161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84882774161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84882774161

VL - 25

SP - 121

EP - 130

JO - Wounds

JF - Wounds

SN - 1044-7946

IS - 5

ER -