Journal
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 133, Issue 3, Pages 722-726Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000438046.83515.6a
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- KCI
- Osirus
- Health Point
- ThermoTek
- Integra
- GlaxoSmithKline
- ConvaTec
- Innovative Therapies, Inc
- Smith and Nephew
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: This study was designed to compare two approaches to negative-pressure wound therapy: 125-mmHg pressure with a polyurethane foam dressing and 75-mmHg pressure with a silicone-coated dressing. Methods: Forty patients with diabetic foot wounds, after incision and drainage or amputation for infection, were assigned randomly to negative-pressure wound therapy with 75-mmHg continuous pressure with a silicone-covered dressing (75-mmHg group) or 125-mmHg with a polyurethane foam dressing (125-mmHg group) for up to 4 weeks or until surgical closure. Results: There was no difference in the proportion of wounds that were closed surgically (75-mmHg group, 50 percent; 125-mmHg group, 60 percent), wounds that demonstrated 50 percent wound area reduction (75-mmHg group, 65 percent; 125-mmHg group, 80 percent), or wounds that demonstrated 50 percent wound volume reduction after 4 weeks of therapy (75-mmHg group, 95 percent; 125-mmHg group, 90 percent). Conclusion: The authors' results suggest that there was no difference in outcomes in wounds treated with low pressure (75 mmHg) with a silicone-coated interface and high pressure (125 mmHg) with a polyurethane foam interface. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available