Liu Jing, Ko Jason H, Secretov Erwin, Huang Eric, Chukwu Christiana, West Julie, Piserchia Katherine, Galiano Robert D
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Int Wound J. 2015 Aug;12(4):456-61. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12137. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
In these uncertain times of high health care costs, clinicians are looking for cost-effective devices to employ in their everyday practices. In an effort to promote cost-effective and proper wound repair, the hydrosurgical device allows accurate debridement of only unwanted tissue while precisely conserving viable structures for eventual repair. This prospective, randomised study compared procedures using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET™) with conventional debridement in order to assess clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness when treating subjects with chronic wounds. A total of 40 subjects were recruited. There was no difference in time to achieve stable wound closure between the treatment groups (P = 0·77). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cost of the first operative procedure (P = 0·28), cost of surgical procedures during the study (P = 0·51), cost of study treatment (P = 0·29) or cost to achieve stable wound closure (P = 0·85). There were no differences in quantitative bacterial counts after debridement with either methods (P = 0·376). However, the time taken for the first excision procedure was significantly faster using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) when compared with conventional debridement (P < 0·001). The total excision time for all procedures was significantly less for the Hydrosurgery group than for the conventional group (P = 0·005). Also, the Hydrosurgery group demonstrated significantly less intraoperative blood loss than conventional group for all procedures (P = 0·003). In this study, although there were no differences in time to stable wound closure or bacterial reduction between the two groups, the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) did offer advantages in terms of operative times and intraoperative blood loss and was cost-neutral, despite the handpiece cost.
在当前医疗保健成本高昂且形势不明朗的时期,临床医生正在寻找具有成本效益的设备用于日常诊疗。为了促进具有成本效益且恰当的伤口修复,水刀手术设备能够仅精确切除不需要的组织,同时精准保留有活力的组织以便最终修复。这项前瞻性随机研究将使用水刀手术系统(VERSAJET™)的手术与传统清创术进行比较,以评估治疗慢性伤口患者时的临床疗效和成本效益。共招募了40名受试者。治疗组之间实现伤口稳定闭合的时间没有差异(P = 0·77)。两组在首次手术操作成本(P = 0·28)、研究期间手术成本(P = 0·51)、研究治疗成本(P = 0·29)或实现伤口稳定闭合的成本(P = 0·85)方面均无显著差异。两种方法清创后细菌定量计数没有差异(P = 0·376)。然而,与传统清创术相比,使用水刀手术系统(VERSAJET)进行首次切除手术所需时间显著更快(P < 0·001)。水刀手术组所有手术的总切除时间明显少于传统组(P = 0·005)。此外,水刀手术组所有手术的术中失血量也明显少于传统组(P = 0·003)。在本研究中,尽管两组在伤口稳定闭合时间或细菌减少方面没有差异,但水刀手术系统(VERSAJET)在手术时间和术中失血量方面确实具有优势,并且尽管有手持器械成本,但总体成本相当。