• Burns · Sep 2024

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Negative pressure wound therapy in burns: a prospective, randomized-controlled trial.

    • C Tapking, J Endlein, J Warszawski, D Kotsougiani-Fischer, E Gazyakan, G Hundeshagen, C Hirche, D Trofimenko, T Burkard, U Kneser, and S Fischer.
    • Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Center, BG Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen, Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
    • Burns. 2024 Sep 1; 50 (7): 184018471840-1847.

    BackgroundNegative-pressure-wound-therapy (NPWT) has become a widely used tool for the coverage and active treatment of complex wounds, including burns. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT in acute burns of upper and lower extremities and to compare results to the standard-of-care (SOC) at our institution.MethodsPatients that were admitted to our institution between May 2019 and November 2021 with burns on extremities between 0.5 % and 10 % of the total body surface area (%TBSA) were included and randomized to either NPWT or SOC (polyhexanide gel, fatty gauze, and cotton wool). Treatment was performed until complete wound healing. Patients that required skin grafts, received additional NPWT after grafting independent on the initial group allocation.ResultsSixty-five patients suffering from burn injury between May 2019 and November 2021 were randomized into treatment with NPWT (n = 33) or SOC (n = 32); of these, 33 patients (NPWT) and 28 patients (SOC) had complete data sets and were included in the analysis. Both groups were similar regarding age (39.8 ± 13.7 vs. 44.8 ± 16.2 years,p = 0.192), total burn size (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 3.4 ± 2.8 %TBSA,p = 0.721) and treated wound size (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 %TBSA,p = 0.138). We found no differences regarding healing time (11.0 ± 4.9 vs. 8.6 ± 3.8,p = 0.074, and significant differences in a number of dressing changes throughout the study (2.4 ± 1.5 vs 4.2 ± 1.9,p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis exhibited no statistically significant difference in the time to healing or skin grafting (p = 0.085) in NPWT group compared with SOC group. The median time to healing or skin grafting was 10(8-11) days for NPWT and 9(7-11) days for SOC. The hazard ratio for healing or skin graft was HR= 0.64(0.38-1.08). The results of the time-to-event analysis as well as the Kaplan-Meier curve on the PPS confirmed this result. We found no differences in secondary surgical operations 15.2 vs 21.4 % pain or functional outcomes.ConclusionsIn this study, we found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of time to detect wound healing. We also found no difference regarding further operations for wound closure, pain and/or scarring. However, dressing changes were significantly less frequent for patients that were treated with NPWT, which may be a psychological and logistical advantage.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Burns Injuries. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…