Dataset Information

Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: In negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), a wound is covered with an airtight dressing, and negative pressure is applied. This is thought to promote healing. We evaluated NPWT with an updated, systematic review of the literature.We systematically searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of NPWT for the treatment of acute or chronic wounds. The primary outcome was complete wound closure.We found reports of 9 RCTs in addition to the 12 covered by earlier IQWiG reviews of this topic. Five of the 9 new trials involved NPWT systems that are not on the market. The frequency of complete wound closure is stated in only 5 of the 9 new reports; a statistically significant effect in favor of NPWT was found in only two trials.The results of 8 of the 9 new trials are hard to interpret, both because of apparent bias and because diverse types of wounds were treated.Although there may be a positive effect of NPWT, we did not find clear evidence that wounds heal any better or worse with NPWT than with conventional treatment. Good RCTs are still needed to evaluate NPWT.

SUBMITTER: Peinemann F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3123764 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Peinemann Frank F Sauerland Stefan S

Deutsches Arzteblatt international 20110603 22

<h4>Background</h4>In negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), a wound is covered with an airtight dressing, and negative pressure is applied. This is thought to promote healing. We evaluated NPWT with an updated, systematic review of the literature.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of NPWT for the treatment of acute or chronic wounds. The primary outcome was complete wound closure.<h4>Results</h4>We found ...[more]

PMID: 21712971

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. METHODS:We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). RESULTS:We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD - 4.78, 95% CI - 7.79 to - 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Project description:BackgroundMassive subcutaneous emphysema can cause considerable morbidity with respiratory distress. To resolve this emphysema in short-term, negative pressure wound therapy could be applied as added treatment modality. However, its use is sparsely reported, and a variety of techniques are being described. This study provides a systematic review of the available literature on the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy as treatment for massive subcutaneous emphysema. In addition, our institutional experience is reported through a case-series.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for publications on the use of negative pressure wound therapy for subcutaneous emphysema following thoracic surgery, trauma or spontaneous pneumothorax. Moreover, patients treated at our institution between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively identified and analyzed.ResultsThe systematic review provided 10 articles presenting 23 cases. Studies demonstrated considerable heterogeneity regarding the location of incision, creation of prepectoral pocket, and surgical safety margin. Also closed incision negative pressure wound therapy and PICO© device were discussed. Despite the apparent heterogeneity, all techniques provided favorable outcomes. No complications, reinterventions or recurrences were documented. Furthermore, retrospective data of 11 patients treated at our clinic demonstrated an immediate response to negative pressure wound therapy and a full remission of the subcutaneous emphysema at the end of negative pressure wound therapy. No recurrence requiring intervention or complications were observed.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that negative pressure wound therapy, despite the varying techniques employed, is associated with an immediate regression of subcutaneous emphysema and full remission at the end of therapy. Given the relatively low sample size, no technique of choice could be identified. However, in general, negative pressure wound therapy appears to provide fast regression of subcutaneous emphysema and release of symptoms in all cases.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundIn August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment.Methods/designThe DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer's instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs.DiscussionThe DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011).German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).

Dataset Information

Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets