Uğurlar Meriç, Sönmez Mesut Mehmet, Armağan Raffi, Eren Osman Tuğrul
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Turkey.
Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep;23(3):173-178. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2016.05.314. Epub 2016 May 11.
The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two different vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) applications in one center between two groups of patients with Wagner Grade 3-4 multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds.
The study was a randomized-controlled, prospective investigation between two groups of patients with Wagner Grade 3-4 multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds at single extremity. There were 10 patients in the first group receiving VAC treatment by means of Y-connector and 11 patients in the second group receiving bridge-VAC treatment.
There were no significant difference in Revised Foot Function Index scores and total treatment costs between the both groups. The cost of the VAC dressing supplies in one session of the dressings was lower in the bridge-VAC group.
In conclusion, although bridge-VAC treatment seems to be an alternative method to the VAC treatment by means of Y-connector, we found no superiority of one over the other VAC application for chronic diabetic foot wounds.
本研究旨在比较在同一中心两组患有瓦格纳3 - 4级多发性慢性糖尿病足伤口的患者中，两种不同的负压封闭引流（VAC）应用方法的临床疗效和安全性。
本研究是一项针对单肢患有瓦格纳3 - 4级多发性慢性糖尿病足伤口的两组患者进行的随机对照前瞻性调查。第一组有10名患者通过Y形连接器接受VAC治疗，第二组有11名患者接受桥式VAC治疗。
两组之间的修订足部功能指数评分和总治疗成本没有显著差异。桥式VAC组每次换药的VAC敷料用品成本较低。
总之，虽然桥式VAC治疗似乎是通过Y形连接器进行VAC治疗的一种替代方法，但我们发现对于慢性糖尿病足伤口，一种VAC应用方法并不优于另一种。
