Retrospective comparison of negative pressure wound therapy and silver-coated foam dressings in open-wound treatment in cats

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for the treatment of complicated wounds in cats. Methods Twenty cats undergoing open-wound treatment in two clinics were classed according to treatment method: NPWT (group A, n = 10) and polyurethane foam dressing (group B, n = 10). Pairs of patients from each group were matched based on wound conformation, localisation and underlying cause. Cats from both groups were compared in terms of duration of previous treatment, time to closure and complications. Results Signalment, duration of previous treatment, antibiotic and antiseptic treatment, and bacterial status were comparable between groups. Total time to wound closure was significantly shorter ( P = 0.046, strong effect size; Cohen d = 0.8) in group A (25.8 days, range 11.0-57.0 days) compared with group B (39.5 days, range 28.0-75.0 days). NPWT-treated wounds suffered fewer complications and became septic less frequently during treatment compared with wounds treated with a foam dressing. The progression of fat tissue necrosis was particularly well controlled under NPWT, resulting in fewer deaths due to this condition in this group. However, although a strong effect of NPWT on the progression of infection, fever and sepsis was detected (Cramer-V 0.5), this difference was not significant. Conclusions and relevance This study demonstrated that time to healing was considerably shorter, and complication rate lower, in NPWT-treated animals compared with foam dressing-treated cats. In particular, the effective management of infection by NPWT emphasises the value of NPWT in the treatment of cats suffering from infected wounds.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Maxillofacial Applications

“…Arti et al [ 73 ] reported a 1.5 day reduction in the duration of hospital stay and 19% reduction in wound surface for patients receiving NPWT for skin graft or flap coverage as opposed to patients receiving conventional wound dressings. In a separate study, a 13.7 day reduction in the duration of wound closure for cats with open wounds was reported [ 74 ]. Additional studies examining treatment of open-wounds with NPWT against other conventional therapies could be beneficial in determining the effect of NPWT on wound closure duration.…”

Feasibility of a disposable canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device for treating open wounds in horses

“…A few case reports, as well as retrospective and prospective studies in cats [17, 18] and dogs [19–24] have already described the use of negative pressure to treat different types of wounds: traumatic wounds, burn injuries, infected surgical incision and skin grafts. In addition to occurring earlier, the granulation tissue filling a wound treated by NPWT in dogs has been noted to be smoother, not exuberant, and histologically demonstrates well-organized collagen fibers [20], suggesting a decreased likelihood for NPWT-treated wounds to develop EGT in dogs.…”

Untitled

“…Nolff and colleagues retrospectively detected improved infection control and fewer cases with progressing signs of sepsis under NPWT compared with polyurethane foam treatment in dogs and cats. 11,12 But so far, there are no prospective randomized studies available to underline and quantify this effect. It is generally accepted that a wound is a local problem that should have little systemic impact, 1 which might be one of the reasons why systemic impacts of treatment are not frequently investigated.…”

“…However, previous studies demonstrated that one of the main reasons for open wound treatment in dogs and cats is uncontrollable infection frequently linked with systemic signs of sepsis. 11,12 In contrast to chronic wounds of other origin, this subtype of wounds represents a group in which systemic effects frequently complicate the situation. Failure to control local and systemic infection are the main reasons for unsuccessful treatment of these patients.…”

“…Failure to control local and systemic infection are the main reasons for unsuccessful treatment of these patients. 11,12 Wound infection-especially early stages-is not always easily differentiated from normal healing. The presence of bacteria alone is not helpful, since the bacterial bioburden can be present without major harm of the patient.…”