Vacuum assisted wound healing: can it prove to be cost- effective?

Saurabhi M. Samant; Bhakti Sarang

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181110

Authors

Saurabhi M. Samant Department of General Surgery, Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s Hospital, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Bhakti Sarang Department of Surgery, BARC Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181110

Keywords:

Chronic lower limb ulcers, Cost-effective modality, Negative pressure wound therapy, Vacuum assisted closure therapy, Wound healing

Abstract

Background: In search for a faster and effective method Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) also known as Vacuum assisted wound closure (VAC) has emerged to be a promising technology over the years. This study was carried out to determine the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) therapy compared to conventional wound therapy.

Methods: A prospective randomised study using VAC was performed on cases with chronic non healing wounds using a low cost negative pressure therapy unit. The negative pressure used in the vacuum assisted closure of the wounds was provided by the wall mounted centralised suction apparatus which provided a constant average pressure of 125 mm of Hg (range being 110-200 mm Hg).

Results: The rate of wound healing which was exhibited by reduction in size of the wound by more than 1 cm at the end of the first 5 days was higher in the cases (82%) as compared to the control (18%) group. By end of 15 days size reduction of >3 cm was seen almost 85% of the patients treated with NPWT. The total cost incurred in the first group undergoing VAC for a period of 15 days per patient was Rs.750 ($11.16) as against the second group undergoing conventional wound dressing which was Rs.700 ($10.41) for the same period per patient. The cost- benefit analysis of the two groups statistically revealed a p value of <0.05 under 95% confidence limits, thus proving vacuum assisted closure, though slightly expensive than the conventional dressing, to be a better and cost effective modality, taking into consideration the faster wound healing rates.

Conclusions: In this study NPWT appeared to exhibit better wound healing and is thus a promising alternative to the conventional management and has a potential to be replicable across many hospitals with financial constraints in the low and middle income countries.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Saurabhi M. Samant, Department of General Surgery, Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s Hospital, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

MBBS, MGM Medical College, Navi Mumbai, India

References

Atala A, Irvine DJ, Moses M, Shaunak S. Wound Healing Versus Regeneration: Role of the Tissue Environment in Regenerative medicine. MRS Bull. 2010;35(8):10.

Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, Kirsner R, Lambert L, Hunt TK, et al. Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17(6):763-71.

Rahman GA, Adigun IA, Fadeyi A.. Epidmiology, Etiology and Treatment of chronic ulcer: Experience with sixty patients Title. Ann Afr Med. 2010;9(1):1-4.

Vowden K, Vowdewn P, Posnett J. The resource costs of wound care in Bradford and Airedale primary care trust in the UK. J Wound Care. 2009;18(3):93-4, 96-8.

Fu X. Skin ulcers in lower extremities: epidemiology and management in china. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2005;6(1):4-6.

Shukla VK, Mumtaz A Gupta SK. Wound healing research: a perspective from India. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2005;4(1):7-8.

Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M KL. vauum sealing as treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures. Unfallchirurg. 1993;96(9):488–92.

Venturi ML, Attinger CE, Mesbahi AN, Hess CL, Graw KS. Mechanisms and clinical applications of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) Device: a review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2005;6:185.

Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38(6):553-62.

Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, Ho K, Deva AK. A prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(4):917-22.

Pham C, Middleton P, Maddern G. Vacuum-assisted closure for the management of wounds: an accelerated systematic review, 2013. Available at https://www.scribd.com/document/280010111/vac

Singh M, Singh R, Singh S, Pandey V, DS. Vacuum assisted closure in wound management-Poor man’s VAC©. Internet J Plast Surg. 2009;6(1).

Hussain A, Singh K, Singh M. Cost Effectiveness of Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Its Modifications: A Review. ISRN Plast Surg. 2013;(2013):595789.

Philbeck TE, Whittington KT, Millsap MH, Briones RB, Wight DG, Schroeder WJ. The clinical and cost effectiveness of externally applied negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of wounds in home healthcare. Ostomy Wound Manag. 1999;45(11):41–50.

Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ, Marks MW DA, Molnar JA, David LR. Vacuum-assisted closur: state of clinic art. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):127–42.

Shalom A, Eran H, Westreich M, Friedman T. Experience O, System. with “homemade” vacuum-assisted closure. No Title. 2008;10:613–6.

Gill NA, Hameed A, Sajjad Y, Ahmad Z, Mirza R, MA "Homemade" negative pressure wound therapy: treatment of complex wounds under challenging conditions. Wounds. 2011;23(4):84-92.