Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Wound Repair Regen. 2020 Jan;28(1):97-104. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12741. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.
本研究旨在比较不同负压伤口治疗(NPWT)设备和 NPWT 联合与不联合冲洗在中重度足部感染住院患者中的疗效。90 例患者被随机分配到一项为期 12 周的前瞻性、随机非劣效性试验中,比较手术后中重度感染性足部伤口接受 NPWT 治疗的患者的伤口愈合情况。纳入标准包括ABI>0.5 或趾压>30 PVR/mmHg,年龄>18 岁,排除标准包括活动性夏科氏关节炎、胶原血管疾病、HIV 和高凝状态。我们比较了两种不同的传统设备,NPWT-K(KCI,VAC Ulta)和 NPWT-C(Cardinal,PRO),以及 NPWT-I 联合生理盐水冲洗(Cardinal,PRO)。所有患者均以 125mmHg 持续压力进行治疗。接受生理盐水冲洗(NPWT-I)的患者,给药速度为 15ml/h。主要结局是 12 周时伤口愈合的比例。次要结局包括手术伤口闭合、手术次数、住院时间和伤口愈合时间。连续数据以平均值±标准差表示。方差分析用于比较连续变量,卡方检验用于比较二分类变量,alpha 值为 0.05。NPWT-I、NPWT-C 和 NPWT-K 组在伤口愈合比例(63.3%、50.0%、46.7%,p=0.39)、手术伤口闭合(83.3%、80.0%、63.3%,p=0.15)、手术次数(2.0±0.49、2.4±0.77、2.4±0.68,p=0.06)、住院时间(16.3±15.7、14.7±7.4、15.3±10.5 天,p=0.87)和伤口愈合时间(46.2±22.8、40.9±18.8、45.9±28.3 天,p=0.78)方面均无差异。我们没有发现不同 NPWT 设备或 NPWT 联合与不联合冲洗治疗的患者在临床结局或不良事件方面有任何显著差异。