HU Kai-xuan, ZHANG Hong-wei, ZHOU Fang, YAO Gang, SHI Jing-ping, WANG Li-fu, HOU Zuo-qiong
Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2009 Aug;25(4):253-7.
To compare the differences of the clinical effects, side effects and treatment-related cost between two kinds of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT).
Forty-four inpatients with acute, subacute, and chronic wounds were divided into simplified NPWT group (A group) and conventional NPWT group (B group) according to the random number table. Wounds of patients in A group were treated with gauze + continuous suction with hospital central negative pressure (-10.64 kPa) for 24 hs; wounds of patients in B group were treated with sponge + interrupted suction with a purpose-designed suction appliance (-16.63 kPa) for 24 hs. Gross wound condition, treatment time, survival rates of skin graft and flap, changes of bacterial species on wound, treatment cost, and ratio of side effects between two groups were compared.
There was no significant difference between A and B groups in respect of gross wound condition, treatment time [A group (29 +/- 12) d, B group (26 +/- 13) d, P > 0.05], changes of bacterial species, survival rates of skin graft [A group (98 +/- 4)%, B group (98 +/- 4)%, P > 0.05] and flap (A group 98%, B group 100%, P > 0.05). Treatment cost of A group yen(374 +/- 134) was obviously lower than that of B group yen(9825 +/- 4956) (P < 0. 01), while more side effects were observed in A group (33.3%) than that in B group (5.0%) (P < 0.05).
Both simplified NPWT and NPWT with purpose-designed appliance can effectively improve wound healing. The simplified method may cause many side effects and has a potential risk of inciting nosocomial infection, but it can be conveniently employed with a low cost. In contrast, the cost of using purpose-designed appliance should be cut down to meet the aim of generalization.
比较两种负压伤口治疗（NPWT）方法在临床效果、副作用及治疗相关费用方面的差异。
将44例急性、亚急性及慢性伤口住院患者按随机数字表法分为简易NPWT组（A组）和传统NPWT组（B组）。A组患者伤口用纱布 + 医院中心负压（-10.64 kPa）持续吸引24小时；B组患者伤口用海绵 + 专用吸引装置间断吸引（-16.63 kPa）24小时。比较两组伤口总体情况、治疗时间、植皮和皮瓣成活率、伤口细菌种类变化、治疗费用及副作用发生率。
A组和B组在伤口总体情况、治疗时间[A组（29±12）天，B组（26±13）天，P>0.05]、细菌种类变化、植皮成活率[A组（98±4）%，B组（98±4）%，P>0.05]和皮瓣成活率（A组98%，B组100%，P>0.05）方面无显著差异。A组治疗费用（374±134）日元明显低于B组（9825±4956）日元（P<0.01），而A组副作用发生率（33.3%）高于B组（5.0%）（P<0.05）。
简易NPWT和专用装置NPWT均可有效促进伤口愈合。简易方法可能会引发较多副作用并有引起医院感染的潜在风险，但使用方便且成本低。相比之下，应降低专用装置的使用成本以实现推广的目标。
