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.

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. .