Department of Ophthalmology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Int Wound J. 2010 Oct;7(5):406-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00706.x.
Pressure transduction to the wound bed in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is crucial in stimulating the biological effects ultimately resulting in wound healing. In clinical practice, either foam or gauze is used as wound filler. Furthermore, two different drainage techniques are frequently employed. One involves the connection of a non-perforated drainage tube to the top of the dressing, while the other involves the insertion of perforated drains into the dressing. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of these two different wound fillers and drainage systems on pressure transduction to the wound bed in a challenging wound (the sternotomy wound). Six pigs underwent median sternotomy. The wound was sealed for NPWT using different wound fillers (foam or gauze) and drainage techniques (see earlier). Pressures between 0 and -175 mmHg were applied and the pressure in the wound was measured using saline-filled catheters sutured to the bottom of the wound (over the anterior surface of the heart) and to the side of the wound (on the thoracic wall). The negative pressure on the wound bed increased linearly with the negative pressure delivered by the vacuum source. In a dry wound, the pressure transduction was similar when using the different wound fillers (foam and gauze) and drainage techniques. In a wet wound, pressure transduction was better when using a perforated drainage tube inserted into the wound filler than a non-perforated drainage tube connected to the top of the dressing (-116 ± 1 versus -73 ± 4 mmHg in the wound at a delivered pressure of -125 mmHg for foam, P < 0·01), regardless of the type of wound filler. Gauze and foam are equally effective at delivering negative pressure to the wound bed. Perforated drainage tubes inserted into the wound filler are more efficient than a non-perforated drainage tubes connected to the top of the dressing. The choice of drainage technique may be particularly important in wounds with a large volume of exudate.
负压伤口治疗(NPWT)中向伤口床传递压力对于刺激生物学效应从而最终促进伤口愈合至关重要。在临床实践中,通常使用泡沫或纱布作为伤口填充物。此外,还经常采用两种不同的引流技术。一种是将无孔引流管连接到敷料顶部,另一种是将穿孔引流管插入敷料中。本研究旨在检查这两种不同的伤口填充物和引流系统在挑战性伤口(胸骨切开术伤口)中向伤口床传递压力的效果。六头猪接受了正中胸骨切开术。使用不同的伤口填充物(泡沫或纱布)和引流技术(见前文)密封伤口以进行 NPWT。在 0 到-175mmHg 之间施加压力,并使用充满生理盐水的导管测量伤口内的压力,这些导管缝合在伤口底部(在前心脏表面)和伤口侧面(在胸壁上)。伤口床的负压随负压源施加的负压线性增加。在干燥的伤口中,使用不同的伤口填充物(泡沫和纱布)和引流技术时,压力传递是相似的。在潮湿的伤口中,与连接到敷料顶部的非穿孔引流管相比,插入伤口填充物中的穿孔引流管的压力传递更好(在泡沫中,当输送压力为-125mmHg 时,伤口中的压力为-116±1 与-73±4mmHg,P<0·01),无论伤口填充物的类型如何。纱布和泡沫在向伤口床输送负压方面同样有效。插入伤口填充物中的穿孔引流管比连接到敷料顶部的非穿孔引流管更有效。在渗出液量大的伤口中,引流技术的选择可能尤为重要。