• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

负压伤口疗法联合超便携机械动力设备与传统电动设备治疗慢性下肢溃疡的疗效比较:一项多中心随机对照试验。

Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with an ultraportable mechanically powered device vs. traditional electrically powered device for the treatment of chronic lower extremity ulcers: a multicenter randomized-controlled trial.

机构信息

Southern Arizona Limb Salvage Alliance, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tuscon, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Mar-Apr;19(2):173-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00658.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00658.x
PMID:21362084
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the ultraportable mechanically powered Smart Negative Pressure (SNaP(®)) Wound Care System to the traditional electrically powered Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC(®)) Therapy System in the treatment of chronic lower extremity wounds. This 12-center randomized-controlled trial of patients with noninfected, nonischemic, nonplantar lower extremity wounds had enrolled 65 patients, as of January 5, 2010, at the time of a planned interim analysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with either the SNaP(®) or VAC(®) Systems. The trial evaluated treatment for up to 16 weeks or till complete closure was achieved. Fifty-three patients (N=27 SNaP(®), N=26 VAC(®)) completed at least 4 weeks of therapy. Thirty-three patients (N=18 SNaP(®), N=15 VAC(®)) completed the study with either healing or 16 weeks of therapy. At the time of planned interim analysis, no significant differences (p=0.99) in the proportion of subjects healed between the two devices evaluated were found. In addition, the percent wound size reduction between treatment groups was not significantly different at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, with noninferiority analysis at 4 weeks of treatment reaching the p-value <0.05 significance level (*p=0.019). These interim data suggest no difference in wound closure between the SNaP(®) System and the VAC(®) System in the population studied. We look forward to the final analysis results.

摘要

本研究旨在比较超便携机械动力 Smart Negative Pressure(SNaP(®))伤口护理系统与传统电动 Vacuum-Assisted Closure(VAC(®))治疗系统在治疗慢性下肢伤口方面的疗效。截至 2010 年 1 月 5 日,该 12 中心、随机对照试验共纳入 65 例非感染、非缺血、非足底下肢伤口患者,当时正在进行计划中的中期分析。受试者随机分配接受 SNaP(®)或 VAC(®)系统治疗。试验评估了长达 16 周的治疗,或直至完全愈合。53 例患者(N=27 SNaP(®),N=26 VAC(®))完成至少 4 周的治疗。33 例患者(N=18 SNaP(®),N=15 VAC(®))完成了研究,或愈合,或治疗 16 周。在计划的中期分析时,未发现两种设备评估的愈合患者比例有显著差异(p=0.99)。此外,治疗组之间的伤口面积减少百分比在 4、8、12 和 16 周时没有显著差异,在治疗 4 周时的非劣效性分析达到了 p 值<0.05 的显著性水平(*p=0.019)。这些中期数据表明,在所研究的人群中,SNaP(®)系统与 VAC(®)系统在伤口闭合方面没有差异。我们期待最终分析结果。

相似文献

1
Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with an ultraportable mechanically powered device vs. traditional electrically powered device for the treatment of chronic lower extremity ulcers: a multicenter randomized-controlled trial.负压伤口疗法联合超便携机械动力设备与传统电动设备治疗慢性下肢溃疡的疗效比较:一项多中心随机对照试验。
Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Mar-Apr;19(2):173-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00658.x.
2
Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.机械和电动负压伤口治疗设备的比较效果:一项多中心随机对照试验。
Wound Repair Regen. 2012 May-Jun;20(3):332-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00780.x.
3
Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.负压伤口治疗(使用真空辅助闭合)与先进湿性伤口治疗在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的比较:一项多中心随机对照试验
Diabetes Care. 2008 Apr;31(4):631-6. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2196. Epub 2007 Dec 27.
4
Evaluation of chronic wound treatment with the SNaP wound care system versus modern dressing protocols.采用 SNaP 伤口护理系统与现代敷料方案治疗慢性伤口的评估。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Oct;126(4):1253-1261. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ea4559.
5
Vacuum assisted closure device improves the take of mesh grafts in chronic leg ulcer patients.负压封闭引流装置可提高慢性腿部溃疡患者网状移植物的成活率。
Dermatology. 2008;216(3):250-6. doi: 10.1159/000112937. Epub 2008 Jan 17.
6
A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device.一项前瞻性随机试验,比较负压伤口治疗与密封纱布敷料及标准负压封闭引流装置。
Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):79-84. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c.
7
State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings.慢性腿部溃疡的前沿治疗:一项比较真空辅助闭合术(V.A.C.)与现代伤口敷料的随机对照试验。
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Nov;44(5):1029-37; discussion 1038. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.07.030. Epub 2006 Sep 26.
8
Vacuum-assisted closure therapy as a pretreatment for split thickness skin grafts.负压封闭引流治疗作为削痂植皮的预处理措施
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010 Oct;20(10):675-9.
9
A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Treatment of Venous Leg Ulcers Using Mechanically Versus Electrically Powered Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.一项比较机械动力与电动负压伤口治疗静脉性腿部溃疡的多中心随机对照试验。
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015 Feb 1;4(2):75-82. doi: 10.1089/wound.2014.0575.
10
Therapy of spinal wound infections using vacuum-assisted wound closure: risk factors leading to resistance to treatment.使用负压伤口封闭疗法治疗脊柱伤口感染:导致治疗抵抗的危险因素。
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Jul;21(5):320-3. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318141f99d.

引用本文的文献

1
Mapping intellectual structures and research hotspots of chronic wound in global perspective.从全球视角映射慢性伤口的知识结构与研究热点。
Regen Ther. 2025 May 17;30:47-62. doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2025.05.002. eCollection 2025 Dec.
2
Diabetic Wound-Healing Science.糖尿病创面愈合科学。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Oct 8;57(10):1072. doi: 10.3390/medicina57101072.
3
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.负压伤口治疗在糖尿病患者足部伤口治疗中的应用
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 17;10(10):CD010318. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010318.pub3.
4
Electrical Stimulation and Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Review of Clinical Evidence.电刺激与皮肤创伤愈合:临床证据回顾。
Healthcare (Basel). 2014 Oct 27;2(4):445-67. doi: 10.3390/healthcare2040445.
5
Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.慢性伤口治疗中的挑战。
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015 Sep 1;4(9):560-582. doi: 10.1089/wound.2015.0635.
6
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating leg ulcers.负压伤口疗法治疗腿部溃疡。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;2015(7):CD011354. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011354.pub2.
7
Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Topical Negative Pressure Device in Promoting Healing in Chronic Wounds.一种新型局部负压装置促进慢性伤口愈合的临床评估
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015 Jun 1;4(6):346-357. doi: 10.1089/wound.2014.0596.
8
A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Treatment of Venous Leg Ulcers Using Mechanically Versus Electrically Powered Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.一项比较机械动力与电动负压伤口治疗静脉性腿部溃疡的多中心随机对照试验。
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015 Feb 1;4(2):75-82. doi: 10.1089/wound.2014.0575.
9
SNaP Wound Care System: Ultraportable Mechanically Powered Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.SNaP伤口护理系统:超便携机械动力负压伤口治疗系统
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2012 Feb;1(1):41-43. doi: 10.1089/wound.2011.0281.
10
Comparative effectiveness of the SNaP™ Wound Care System.SNaP™ 伤口护理系统的比较效果。
Int Wound J. 2011 Apr;8(2):196-205. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00775.x. Epub 2011 Mar 8.