» Articles » PMID: 35530827

A Comparative Study Between Vacuum Dressing and Normal Saline Dressing for Chronic Non-Healing Ulcers

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2022 May 9
PMID 35530827
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction Isn't it a boon that all living organisms possess the ability to heal their injuries? The wound healing is faster when the normal physiology of the wound healing is maintained. Our understanding of wound healing has undergone dramatic changes in the recent past. Almost all materials and methods available on earth have been used and tested to facilitate the process of wound healing. The mental agony and the disability suffered by patients with chronic ulcers have led to the reappraisal of the basic components of the wound healing process and how they are influenced by biological, mechanical, and physical forces. The Department of General Surgery in our Government Chengalpattu Medical College and Hospital, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, India, admits and treats a large volume of patients with wounds and ulcers. Here many materials are being used regularly for dressing to make wound healing faster. Vacuum dressings were also done on many patients, and promising results were observed. This kindled our interest in conducting this prospective study and comparing wound healing with vacuum dressing versus normal saline dressing. Materials and methods A total of 74 patients were included in the study, out of which 37 patients were randomly included in the experimental group and vacuum dressing was done, while the other 37 included in the control group were treated with dressing done with normal saline moistened gauze and bandage roll. Rates at which the wound healed were compared. Results We were able to observe a statistically significant difference in the rate of appearance of granulation tissue between the two and increased clearance of bacteria and toxins. The study group promised better progress as compared to the control group in various aspects. Conclusion Vacuum dressing brings an obvious improvement in the healing of non-healing ulcers and decreases the overall duration of stay in the hospital.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive management of severe crush injury in a pediatric patient: A case report.

Nguyen P, Nguyen T, Mai P, Truong D Trauma Case Rep. 2024; 54:101098.

PMID: 39318763 PMC: 11417569. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcr.2024.101098.


Progress in Wound-Healing Products Based on Natural Compounds, Stem Cells, and MicroRNA-Based Biopolymers in the European, USA, and Asian Markets: Opportunities, Barriers, and Regulatory Issues.

Srivastava G, Martinez-Rodriguez S, Fadilah N, Looi Qi Hao D, Markey G, Shukla P Polymers (Basel). 2024; 16(9).

PMID: 38732749 PMC: 11085499. DOI: 10.3390/polym16091280.

References
1.
Banwell P, Teot L . Topical negative pressure (TNP): the evolution of a novel wound therapy. J Wound Care. 2003; 12(1):22-8. DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2003.12.1.26451. View

2.
Singh A, Halder S, Menon G, Chumber S, Misra M, Sharma L . Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on hydrocolloid occlusive dressing versus conventional gauze dressing in the healing of chronic wounds. Asian J Surg. 2004; 27(4):326-32. DOI: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60061-0. View

3.
Armstrong D, Lavery L . Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366(9498):1704-10. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7. View

4.
Apelqvist J, Armstrong D, Lavery L, Boulton A . Resource utilization and economic costs of care based on a randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. Am J Surg. 2008; 195(6):782-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.023. View

5.
Gottrup F, Holstein P, Jorgensen B, Lohmann M, Karlsmar T . A new concept of a multidisciplinary wound healing center and a national expert function of wound healing. Arch Surg. 2001; 136(7):765-72. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.136.7.765. View