Background:Current predominantly used equipments for negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are expensive. In current healthcare climate continually emphasizing cost containment, importance in developing more cost-effective alternatives cannot be understated. Previously, therapeutically equivalent methods of providing NPWT was demonstrated using just low-cost, universally available supplies, coined Gauze-SUCtion (GSUC). Here, we examine long-term potential financial savings of utilizing GSUC over commercialized products.Methods:A retrospective cost analysis was performed at the University of Chicago Medical Center between 1999 and 2014. All NPWT was provided via either GSUC or commercialized vacuum-assisted closure (VAC, KCI) device. Sum of all material component costs were reviewed to determine theoretical average daily cost. For the VAC group, recorded institutional spend to KCI was also reviewed to determine actual daily cost. In the GSUC group, this figure was extrapolated using similar ratios. Labor costs for each method were determined using analysis from prior study. Patient demographics, etiology, wound location, and treatment length were also reviewed.Results:Total of 35,871 days of NPWT was provided during the 15-year span. Theoretical average cost of VAC was $94.01/d versus $3.61/d for GSUC, whereas actual average was $111.18/d versus $4.26/d. Average labor cost was $20.11/dressing change versus $12.32. Combined, total cost of VAC therapy was estimated at $119,224 per every 1,000 days of therapy versus $9,188 for the GSUC.Conclusions:There is clear and significant cost savings from utilization of GSUC method of NPWT. Furthermore, the added advantage of being able to provide NPWT from universally accessible materials cannot be overstated.

No abstract

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a great masquerader in wound diagnosis and management. Frequently misdiagnosed as a necrotizing infection, the elusive nature of its etiology and pathogenesis has thwarted the establishment of a standardized management algorithm, leaving immunosuppressant therapies as the mainstay of treatment. The present report describes a 61-year-old woman presenting with temporally discrete bilateral dorsal hand lesions successfully managed with distinctive multimodality therapies. The initial lesion was managed under the auspices of a necrotizing process using a combination of hyperbaric oxygen therapy and skin grafting with a negative-pressure dressing, both individually demonstrated to be effective for prompt wound stabilization and coverage. A subsequent contralateral hand lesion was similarly managed as a necrotizing infection before a diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum was considered. Stabilization and eventual resolution was achieved using intravenous and topical steroids followed by hyperbaric oxygen therapy, again highlighting the benefits of multimodality therapy in the setting of pyoderma gangrenosum.

PURPOSE: In response to growing concern about the effect of blue light on ocular tissue, companies have created mobile device screen protectors to block blue light. This project evaluates one of these screen protectors' ability to reduce blue light intensity. METHODS: The intensity of light at 450 nm from an iPhone 8, iPhone X, and iPad was measured in a dark room. The averages of three measurements were taken with and without the screen protector at different distances, settings of brightness, and Apple's night shift (NS) mode. Results were analyzed using paired t -tests. RESULTS: At 33 cm, 100% brightness, and 0% NS, the screen protector decreased intensity by 43.9%, 32.3%, and 34.9% for the iPhone 8, iPhone X, and iPad, respectively. At 33 cm and 100% brightness, increasing NS mode from 0% to 100% decreased intensity by 81.2%, 84.2%, and 86.5%. At 33 cm without NS, decreasing the brightness from 100% to 0% decreased intensity by 99.5%, 99.8%, and 97.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The screen protector decreased the intensity at 450 nm for every setting other than those at 0% brightness. Decreasing brightness and applying NS mode were more effective in reducing blue light. More research is needed to determine the benefits of decreasing blue light exposure from electronic devices.

Background: Sleep is an important component of neurorehabilitation. This study evaluates sleep quality in the acute inpatient rehabilitation setting and is the first to compare sleep quality in acute rehabilitation versus the acute care hospital and home settings. Objective: To assess patient sleep quality in the acute inpatient rehabilitation setting. Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Setting: Acute inpatient rehabilitation unit. Patients: Seventy-three patients admitted to the acute rehabilitation unit participated in the study. Interventions: A validated sleep questionnaire was provided on admission regarding sleep at home and in the acute care hospital. The questionnaire was repeated on discharge from the acute rehabilitation unit regarding sleep during their rehabilitation admission. Main Outcome Measures: Visual analog scale of sleep depth, falling asleep, number of awakenings, percentage of time awake, and quality of sleep were obtained through use of the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire. These values were averaged to obtain "overall sleep perception." An additional question on environmental noise was added. Scores ranged from 0 for "worst sleep possible" to 100 for "best sleep possible." Results: Patients reported significantly better sleep in all domains and overall in the acute rehabilitation unit compared to the acute care hospital, with the exception of percentage of time awake. Patients also reported significantly better sleep depth but worse noise in the acute rehabilitation unit when compared to home. Similarly, patients reported significantly better sleep in all domains and overall at home in comparison to the acute care hospital with the exception of percentage of time awake. Conclusions: Patient in the acute rehabilitation unit experience sleep quality that matches their experience at home and exceeds that in the hospital.