首页> 外文期刊>Wound repair and regeneration: official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society >Randomized clinical study to compare negative pressure wound therapy with simultaneous saline irrigation and traditional negative pressure wound therapy for complex foot infections
【24h】

Randomized clinical study to compare negative pressure wound therapy with simultaneous saline irrigation and traditional negative pressure wound therapy for complex foot infections

机译:随机临床研究比较负压伤口治疗与同时盐水冲洗和传统负压伤害治疗复杂脚部感染

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12‐week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI??0.5 or toe pressures 30 PVR/mmHg, 18?years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT‐K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT‐C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT‐I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125?mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT‐I), the administration rate was 15?ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12?weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean?±?standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi‐square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT‐I, NPWT‐C, and NPWT‐K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0?±?0.49, 2.4?±?0.77, 2.4?±?0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3?±?15.7, 14.7?±?7.4, 15.3?±?10.5?days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2?±?22.8, 40.9?±?18.8, 45.9?±?28.3?days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.
机译:摘要本研究的目的是比较不同负压伤口治疗(NPWT)器件和NPWT的疗效,并没有同时灌溉,患者入院治疗中度和严重的脚部感染。九十名患者在12周的前瞻性,随机的非流动性试验中随机随机,以比较术后NPWT治疗中度和严重受感染的脚伤患者的伤口愈合。包含标准包括abi?& 0.5或脚趾压力& 30 pvr / mmhg,& 18岁和排除包括活跃的Charcot关节病,胶原血管疾病,艾滋病毒和超古植物。我们比较了两种不同的传统设备,NPWT-K(KCI,Vac Ulta)和NPWT-C(Cardinal,Pro)和NPWT-I,与盐水冲洗(Cardinal,Pro)。所有患者均在125毫升连续压力下递送治疗。在接受同时盐水冲洗(NPWT-I)的患者中,每小时给药率为15μm。主要结果是12个周内愈合伤口的比例。二次结果包括外科伤口闭合,手术人数,留守长度和伤口愈合的时间。连续数据显示为平均值?±标准偏差。方差分析用于比较连续变量和Chi-Squard,比较0.05的α的二分异数。 NPWT-I,NPWT-C和NPWT-K群中的结果与愈合伤口成比例的结果差异(63.3%,50.0%,46.7%p = 0.39),手术伤口闭合(83.3%,80.0%,63.3 %,p = 0.15),手术的数量(2.0?±0.49,2.4?±α?0.77,2.4?±α?0.68,P = 0.06),保持长度(16.3?±15.7,14.7,14.7?±α?7.4, 15.3?±10.5?天,p = 0.87),伤口愈合时间(46.2?±22.8,40.9?±α?18.8,45.9?±α?28.3?天,p = 0.78)。我们没有识别用不同NPWT器件或NPWT治疗的患者的临床结果或不良事件的任何显着差异,并且没有灌溉。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号