This is an outdated version published on 2024-08-31. Read the most recent version.

The Randomized controlled trial compares Clinical Outcome between Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) with CBH-KMITL Ambulatory Negative Pressuring Device (CKANPD) and Conventional Device in Open Traumatic Wound

Authors

  • chayut krualamai Chonburi hospital
  • Saroj Wongkraivet Chonburi Hospital
  • Weerawat Sompeewong Chonburi Hospital
  • Suriyun Krualamai Chonburi Hospital
  • Sarinporn Visitsattapongse King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
  • Nutthanan Wanluk King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang

Keywords:

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure (VAC), granulation tissue formation, open traumatic wounds, portable NPWT device, CBH-KMITL Ambulatory Negative Pressuring Device (CKANPD)

Abstract

Background: Open traumatic wounds often require Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for treatment. The CBH-KMITL Ambulatory Negative Pressuring Device (CKANPD), a cost-effective, portable NPWT device, has been developed to address the limitations of conventional devices.

Objective: This study of 48 patients aimed to compare the CKANPD and conventional NPWT devices in terms of granulation tissue formation rate and infection rates.

Methods: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. The primary outcome was the rate of granulation tissue formation, with secondary outcomes including infection rates and patient satisfaction.

Results: The CKANPD group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of granulation tissue formation after one week of NPWT (93.09 ±4.76% vs 88.41 ±5.71%, p=0.004). No significant difference was observed in wound size reduction between the two methods. Both methods had an infection rate of 0, indicating excellent safety profiles.

Conclusion: The CKANPD is a non-inferior alternative to conventional NPWT devices, promoting faster granulation tissue formation without increasing infection risk. These promising results pave the way for the next phase of study in outpatient settings, aligning with the primary goal of CKANPD development. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term outcomes.

Keywords : Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure (VAC), granulation tissue formation, open traumatic wounds, portable NPWT device, CBH-KMITL Ambulatory Negative Pressuring Device (CKANPD)

Author Biographies

chayut krualamai, Chonburi hospital

Department of orthopaedics

Saroj Wongkraivet, Chonburi Hospital

Sport unit , Department of Orthopaedic

Weerawat Sompeewong, Chonburi Hospital

Trauma unit, Department of Orthopaedic

Suriyun Krualamai, Chonburi Hospital

Trauma unit, Department of Orthopaedic

Sarinporn Visitsattapongse, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang

Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineer,

Nutthanan Wanluk, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang

Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineer

References

World Health Organization. Injuries and violence: the facts 2014. Genève, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.

Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT, Thacker JG, Lin KY, Drake DB, Mason SS, et al. Revolutionary advances in the management of traumatic wounds in the emergency department during the last 40 years: part II. J Emerg Med. 2010;38(2):201–7.

Tornetta P. Rockwood and Green’s fractures in adults. Kingston upon Thames, England: Wolters Kluwer; 2020.

Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):553-62.

Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):563-76.

Orgill DP, Bayer LR. Negative pressure wound therapy: past, present and future. Int Wound J. 2013 Feb;10 (Suppl 1):15-9.

Stannard JP, Robinson JT, Anderson ER, McGwin G Jr, Volgas DA, Alonso JE. Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high-energy trauma. J Trauma. 2006;60(6):1301–6.

Mouës CM, Vos MC, van den Bemd G-JCM, Stijnen T, Hovius SER. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(1):11–7.

Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Newton K, Dumville JC, Costa ML, Norman G, Bruce J. Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD012522.

Jayakumar M, Ajai PA. Comparative study between primary vacuum assisted closure and conventional sterile dressing in treatment of soft tissue injuries associated with severe open fractures of both bones leg. Kerala J Orthop. 2013;26:8–12.

Gupta K, Mundada A, Patil A. Comparison of vacuum assisted closure therapy with standard wound therapy for open musculoskeletal injuries. Int J Recent Trends Sci Technol. 2013;9:168–70.

Sibin JP, Binoj R, Jose FC. Vacuum assisted closure in grade III open tibial fractures. Indian J Appl Res. 2017;7:254–6.

Stannard JP, Volgas DA, Stewart R, McGwin G Jr, Alonso JE. Negative pressure wound therapy after severe open fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:552–7.

Virani SR, Dahapute AA, Bava SS, Muni SR. Impact of negative pressure wound therapy on open diaphyseal tibial fractures: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2016;7:256–9.

Streubel PN, Stinner DJ, Obremskey WT. Use of negative-pressure wound therapy in orthopaedic trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20:564–57.

Ahmad M, Mohmand H, Ahmad N. Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) at home: developing a new concept. World J Plast Surg. 2013;2(2):87–92.

Bayoumi A, Al-Sayed A, Al-Mallah A. Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing in treatment of diabetic foot wound. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2018;72(3):4054–9

Downloads

Published

2024-08-31

Versions