A Cost and Metric Comparison of Disposable Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Systems.

BACKGROUND: Disposable NPWT (dNPWT), a form of negative-pressure wound therapy, has been shown to be both outcome- and cost-effective for small to medium-sized wounds or closed incisions compared to traditional NPWT systems. When choosing a dNPWT system, multiple factors should be evaluated, including the wound size, wound type, estimated exudate production, and required days of therapy. If the device is not optimized for use in a particular patient, a much higher overall cost can be expected. METHODS: A web-based search, manufacturer website review and communication, and list price-based cost analysis was performed for currently available dNPWT systems. These systems differ with respect to cost, degree of negative pressure, canister size, number of dressings included, and recommended days of therapy. RESULTS: The results showed that 3M™ KCI devices (3M™ KCI, St. Paul, MN) cost about 6x more per day than non-KCI devices, and the V.A.C.® Via and Prevena™ Plus Customizable Incision Management System (both 3M KCI) cost over $180 per day of use. The no-canister Pico 14™ (Smith+Nephew, Watford, UK) is the most cost-effective dNPWT option, with an overall cost of $25.00 per day, but is limited to low exudate-producing wounds, such as closed incisions. At $25.67 per day, the UNO 15 (Genadyne Biotechnologies, Hicksville, NY) is the most cost-effective dNPWT option that still includes a replaceable canister system. CONCLUSION: We present a cost and metric comparison of currently available dNPWT systems. Despite significant differences in the cost of treatment with each dNPWT device, there has been limited research on their relative efficacies.

Comparison of inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps versus vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps in the reconstruction of perineal wounds.

BACKGROUND: Achieving a healed perineal wound following chemoradiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection (APR) is challenging for surgeons and patients. Prior studies have shown trunk-based flaps, including vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps, are superior to both primary closure and thigh-based flaps; however, there has been no direct comparison with gluteal fasciocutaneous flaps. This study evaluates postoperative complications after various methods of perineal flap closure of APR and pelvic exenteration defects. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent APR or pelvic exenteration from April 2008 through September 2020 was analyzed for postoperative complications. Flap closure techniques, including VRAM, unilateral (IGAP), and bilateral (BIGAP) inferior gluteal artery perforator fasciocutaneous flaps, were compared. RESULTS: Of 116 patients included, the majority underwent fasciocutaneous (BIGAP/IGAP) flap reconstruction (n = 69, 59.6%), followed by VRAM (n = 47, 40.5%). There were no significant differences between group patient demographics, comorbidities, body mass index, or cancer stage. There were no significant differences between BIGAP/IGAP and VRAM groups in minor complications (57% versus 49%, p = 0.426) or major complications (45% versus 36%, p = 0.351), including major/minor perineal wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies have shown flap closure is preferable to primary closure after APR and neoadjuvant radiation but lack consensus on which flap offers superior postoperative morbidity. This study comparing outcomes of perineal flap closure showed no significant difference in postoperative complications. Fasciocutaneous flaps are a viable choice for the reconstruction of these challenging defects.