We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effects of Incisional Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy on Primary Closed Defects after Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap Harvest: Randomized Controlled Study.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2016 December
BACKGROUND: Prolonged hematoma or seroma after primary closure is a causative element in wound complications. This study evaluated the effects of negative-pressure wound therapy on primary closed wounds after superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap harvest.
METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing conventional dressing against a single application of negative-pressure wound therapy for 5 days after primary closure. A total of 100 patients who had superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap harvest were enrolled.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy and conventional dressing groups in the distribution of risk factors. Significant findings were noted for duration and amount of closed suction drainage: 6.12 ± 4.99 days (median, 4 days; range, 3 to 8 days) and 100.47 ± 140.69 cc (median, 42 cc) for wounds treated with conventional dressing versus 3.34 ± 1.35 days (median, 3 days; range, 2 to 4 days) and 23.28 ±18.36 cc (median, 20 cc) for wounds in treatment group (p = 0.0077 and p = 0.0004), respectively. After closure, an increase in skin perfusion were noted on day 5 in the treatment group (p = 0.0223). There was one case of wound dehiscence in the conventional dressing group.
CONCLUSION: The incisional negative-pressure wound therapy has a positive effect over primary closed surgical defects by significantly reducing the amount of fluid collected by closed suction drains, allowing earlier removal of drains and enhancing the skin perfusion on the repaired skin.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing conventional dressing against a single application of negative-pressure wound therapy for 5 days after primary closure. A total of 100 patients who had superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap harvest were enrolled.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy and conventional dressing groups in the distribution of risk factors. Significant findings were noted for duration and amount of closed suction drainage: 6.12 ± 4.99 days (median, 4 days; range, 3 to 8 days) and 100.47 ± 140.69 cc (median, 42 cc) for wounds treated with conventional dressing versus 3.34 ± 1.35 days (median, 3 days; range, 2 to 4 days) and 23.28 ±18.36 cc (median, 20 cc) for wounds in treatment group (p = 0.0077 and p = 0.0004), respectively. After closure, an increase in skin perfusion were noted on day 5 in the treatment group (p = 0.0223). There was one case of wound dehiscence in the conventional dressing group.
CONCLUSION: The incisional negative-pressure wound therapy has a positive effect over primary closed surgical defects by significantly reducing the amount of fluid collected by closed suction drains, allowing earlier removal of drains and enhancing the skin perfusion on the repaired skin.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app