Simplified vacuum dressing system: effectiveness and safety in wounds management.

PURPOSE: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has revolutionized wound care, but its high cost reduces the procedure's availability. To solve the problem, streamlined vacuum dressings systems have been proposed, but the utility of these devices has been poorly studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate a simplified vacuum dressing system model (SVDM). METHODS: Randomized clinical trial in which wounds were treated with SVDM compared to a complex occlusive dressing (silver hydrofiber, SHF). The analyzed outcomes were cleaning, presence of granulation tissue, clinical appearance, and indication for surgical closure of wounds. RESULTS: Fifty injuries were treated (25 in each group), most located on lower limbs. SVDM proved to be more effective than SHF in the evaluated outcomes. Wound recalcitrance reduced the effectiveness of the equipment used. Despite its efficacy, complications occurred, the most frequent related to dressing changes: minor bleeding, foam adherence to a wound bed, and pain. Only for bleeding no favorable risk-benefit ratio was found. There were no severe complications, worsening conditions of injuries, or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: SVDM proved to be an effective and acceptably safe device for managing studied wounds.

Simplified vacuum dressing system: effectiveness and safety in wounds management

Purpose: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has revolutionized wound care, but its high cost reduces the procedure's availability. To solve the problem, streamlined vacuum dressings systems have been proposed, but the utility of these devices has been poorly studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate a simplified vacuum dressing system model (SVDM). Methods: Randomized clinical trial in which wounds were treated with SVDM compared to a complex occlusive dressing (silver hydrofiber, SHF). The analyzed outcomes were cleaning, presence of granulation tissue, clinical appearance, and indication for surgical closure of wounds. Results: Fifty injuries were treated (25 in each group), most located on lower limbs. SVDM proved to be more effective than SHF in the evaluated outcomes. Wound recalcitrance reduced the effectiveness of the equipment used. Despite its efficacy, complications occurred, the most frequent related to dressing changes: minor bleeding, foam adherence to a wound bed, and pain. Only for bleeding no favorable risk-benefit ratio was found. There were no severe complications, worsening conditions of injuries, or deaths. Conclusions: SVDM proved to be an effective and acceptably safe device for managing studied wounds.