Use of NPWT with and without Soft Port technology in infected foot wounds undergoing partial diabetic foot amputation

Schwartz, Jamie A.; Fuller, A.; Avdagić, Edin; Gendics, C.; Lantis, John C.

doi:10.12968/jowc.2015.24.sup9.s4

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Common complications and their management Before applying NPWT for diabetic foot wounds, the application conditions should be fully understood. Continuous assessment should occur throughout the process and the application should be stopped or the vacuum dressings replaced according to the situation of the wounds [ 83–85 ]. Compared with conventional diabetic foot wound treatment methods, NPWT does not significantly increase complications.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds

Ji¹,

Liu²,

Huang³

et al. 2021

Burns &Amp; Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because China is becoming an aging society, the incidence of diabetes and diabetic foot have been increasing. Diabetic foot has become one of the main health-related killers due to its high disability and mortality rates. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is one of the most effective techniques for the treatment of diabetic foot wounds and great progress, both in terms of research and its clinical application, has been made in the last 20 years of its development. However, due to the complex pathogenesis and management of diabetic foot, irregular application of NPWT often leads to complications, such as infection, bleeding and necrosis, that seriously affect its treatment outcomes. In 2020, under the leadership of Burns, Trauma and Tissue Repair Committee of the Cross-Straits Medicine Exchange Association, the writing group for ‘Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds’ was established with the participation of scholars from the specialized areas of burns, endocrinology, vascular surgery, orthopedics and wound repair. Drawing on evidence-based practice suggested by the latest clinical research, this consensus proposes the best clinical practice guidelines for the application and prognostic evaluation of NPWT for diabetic foot. The consensus aims to support the formation of standardized treatment schemes that clinicians can refer to when treating cases of diabetic foot.

show abstract

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds

Ji¹,

Liu²,

Huang³

et al. 2021

Burns &Amp; Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A clinical study was undertaken to determine the clinical efficacy of a NPWT system in postsurgical open diabetic foot amputation wounds . To allow for comparison, the study specifically mimicked the inclusion and exclusion criteria and endpoints of the 2005 Armstrong and Lavery paper cited above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single‐use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities

Kirsner

Dove²,

Reyzelman

et al. 2019

Wound Repair Regeneration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multicenter, phase‐4, randomized, comparative‐efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single‐use negative pressure wound therapy (s‐NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t‐NPWT) over a 12‐week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non‐infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow‐up (64 in the s‐NPWT group and 51 in the t‐NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s‐NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s‐NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s‐NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s‐NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t‐NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s‐NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t‐NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device‐related AEs were more frequent in the t‐NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s‐NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s‐NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t‐NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s‐NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.

show abstract

Use of NPWT with and without Soft Port technology in infected foot wounds undergoing partial diabetic foot amputation

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds

Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds

A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single‐use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About