Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Regional Hospital (CLMMRH), Bacolod City, Philippines.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Nov 20;101(22):1990-1998. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00125.
Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) gained widespread clinical use after its introduction in the 1990s because of its many beneficial effects on the wound environment. However, high treatment costs have limited its use in third-world countries. The present study compares a low-cost, locally developed NPWT system with a commercially available system in terms of efficacy, reliability, ease of application, and safety.
This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved 36 patients who were managed with NPWT with either a low-cost, locally developed system (AquaVac) or a commercially available Vacuum-Assisted Closure Advanced Therapy System (VAC ATS; KCI). The low-cost NPWT system described consists of a converted aquarium pump as a reusable vacuum source and a dressing system that can be found in the hospital supply room: food plastic wrap as an occlusive drape, surgical gauze as wound filler, nasogastric tubes as tubing, and used intravenous (IV) bottles as effluent canisters. The purpose of the study was to compare the 2 systems in terms of (1) time to apply the dressing, (2) exudate levels, (3) amount of granulation tissue, (4) wound size reduction, (5) average cost of treatment, (6) visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and (7) complications.
The experimental low-cost system had a small but statistically insignificant advantage over the commercially available system in terms of application time, pain during dressing changes, and wound contraction percentage. The 2 systems were comparable in terms of the amount of exudate, granulation tissue coverage, and VAS scores during the course of treatment. No wound or periwound complications were observed. The systems were significantly different in terms of cost, with the AquaVac system being 7 times less expensive than the VAC ATS system ($63.75 compared with $491.38 USD).
The low-cost AquaVac system was shown to be comparable with the commercial VAC ATS system, suggesting that it is an effective and safe alternative method for NPWT in resource-challenged settings.
Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
负压伤口治疗(NPWT)自 20 世纪 90 年代推出以来,因其对伤口环境的诸多有益影响而得到广泛的临床应用。然而,高昂的治疗费用限制了它在第三世界国家的使用。本研究比较了一种低成本、本地开发的 NPWT 系统与一种商业上可用的系统在疗效、可靠性、应用方便性和安全性方面的差异。
这项前瞻性、随机对照试验纳入了 36 名接受 NPWT 治疗的患者,他们分别使用一种低成本、本地开发的系统(AquaVac)或一种商业上可用的真空辅助闭合高级治疗系统(VAC ATS;KCI)进行治疗。所描述的低成本 NPWT 系统由一个改装的水族箱泵作为可重复使用的真空源和一个可以在医院供应室找到的敷料系统组成:食品保鲜膜作为封闭敷布、外科纱布作为伤口填充物、鼻胃管作为管道、以及用过的静脉(IV)瓶作为流出液罐。本研究的目的是比较这两种系统在以下方面的差异:(1)敷料应用时间,(2)渗出液水平,(3)肉芽组织量,(4)伤口缩小量,(5)治疗平均成本,(6)视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分,以及(7)并发症。
在应用时间、更换敷料时的疼痛和伤口收缩百分比方面,实验性低成本系统与商业上可用系统相比有较小但无统计学意义的优势。两种系统在治疗过程中的渗出量、肉芽组织覆盖率和 VAS 评分方面相当。未观察到伤口或周围组织并发症。两种系统在成本方面存在显著差异,AquaVac 系统比 VAC ATS 系统便宜 7 倍(63.75 美元对 491.38 美元)。
低成本的 AquaVac 系统与商业上可用的 VAC ATS 系统相当,表明在资源有限的环境下,它是 NPWT 的一种有效和安全的替代方法。
治疗学 I 级。请参阅作者指南以获取完整的证据等级描述。