Title: Comparison of Vacuum Assisted Closure with Conventional Dressing
Authors: Dr I J Jinu, Dr Lyke Xavier, Dr D Dimmy Harold
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i3.188
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
One of the most common causes for admission in surgical ward is non healing ulcer. In which diabetes is the most common etiology. In most of the cases, hospital stay of many weeks is required for management of the above. In many cases they ultimately go for amputation. Acute and chronic wounds affect at least 1% of the population. Regardless of etiology, wounds are difficult to treat if coexisting factors (eg, infection or diabetes mellitus) prevent regular wound healing.
Wounds represent a significant risk factor for hospitalization, amputation, sepsis, and even death, and from the patient’s perspective, wound therapy is often un-comfortable or painful. In all sense patients turns to be a burden for society and family.
Vacuum assisted closure is a universally accepted method for dressing. It has proved its efficacy for wound dressing. Faster wound healing, shorter hospital stay.
Still in our hospital, majority of dressings are conventional. My aim is to show the advantage of V.A.C over conventional dressing in our hospital
Key words: vaccum assisted closure; wound healing; non healing ulcer
MeSH terms: vaccum assisted closure; non healing ulcer
References
1. Whitworth I. History and development of negative pressure therapy. In: Banwell PE, Teot L, editors. 1st International Topical Negative Pressure Focus Group Meeting. Faringdon, UK: TPX Communications; 2004. p. 22–6.
2. Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M, et al. [Vacuum sealing as treatment of soft tissue dam-age in open fractures]. Unfallchirurg 1993; 96(9):488–92 (in German).
3. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38(6):563–76 [discussion: 577].
4. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI,et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new methodfor wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38(6):553–62.
5. Skagen K, Henrikson O. Changes in subcutaneous blood flow during locally applied negativepressure to the skin. ActaPhysiolScand 1983; 117(3):411–4.
6. Fentem PH, Matthews JA. The duration of the increase in arterial inflow during the exposure ofthe forearm to subatmospheric pressure. J Physiol 1970; 210(2):65–6.
7. Banwell PE, Morykwas MJ, Jennings DA, etal.Dermalmicrovascular flow in experimental partial thickness burns: the effect of topical subatmospheric pressure. J Burn Care Rehabil2000; 21:s161.
8. Fabian TS, Kaufman HJ, Lett ED, et al. The evaluation of subatmospheric pressure and hyper-baric oxygen in ischemic full-thickness woundhealing. Am Surg 2000; 66(12):1136–43.
9. Fleischmann W, Becker U, Bischoff M, etal.Vacuum sealing: indication technique and re-sults. Eur J Orthop Surg Trauma 1995; 5:37–40.
10. Weed T, Ratliff C, Drake DB. Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy: does the wound VAC enhance bacterial clearance? Ann Plast Surg 2004; 52(3):276–9[discussion: 279–80].