RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the ability of foam dressing-based and non-foam-based closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) systems to close isolated incisional deficits in a tissue model. METHODS: Similarly sized foam-based and non-foam-based absorbent ciNPT dressings were applied to ~36cm long, ~3mm and ~6mm wide simulated incisions in gel sheets covered with drape (n=6 dressings/group/experimental condition spread over three respective therapy units). Changes in incision widths were measured directly or with overlying solid gel sheeting (to mimic tissue resistance), at five equally spaced locations before, immediately upon and one hour after initiating negative pressure using associated therapy units. RESULTS: Foam-based ciNPT closed simulated incisions more often than non-foam-based ciNPT in all tested conditions (p<0.05). While foam-based ciNPT almost completely closed the ~3mm wide incisional spaces, unlike non-foam-based ciNPT, the biggest differences between the two groups were observed with the ~6mm incisional width, which allowed maximal inward-stretching of the appositional faces without complete closure. The additional gel layer blunted closure in both groups, but much more with non-foam-based ciNPT. There was minimal impact of negative pressure duration on these results. CONCLUSION: Foam-based ciNPT closed incisional widths in simulated tissue significantly more compared with non-foam-based ciNPT. Different ciNPT systems should not be considered necessarily equivalent in performance.