COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Do patient and nurse outcome differences exist between 2 negative pressure wound therapy systems?

Nancy M Albert, Ronald Rock, Mary Ann Sammon, James F Bena, Shannon L Morrison, Angela Whitman, Irene Kato, Judith C Landis-Erdman
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing 2012, 39 (3): 259-66
22552107

PURPOSE: We prospectively compared the effectiveness of foam- and gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems on wound healing, pain, cost, and hospital length of stay. We also compare ease of use and time in performing dressing changes reported by nurses.

DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing foam- and gauze-based NPWT systems.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Eleven adult subjects with physician orders for NPWT participated in the study. Subjects were middle-aged, white, and male.

METHODS: Six subjects were randomly allocated to foam-based and 5 to gauze-based NPWT systems. Wound healing rates and pain at the first dressing change were measured using a centimeter ruler and a visual analog scale, respectively. Wound care costs were tabulated from a checklist of supplies used and nurse perceptions were measured by responses to Likert-type surveys. Relationships between NPWT system and selected variables were measured using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS: Median wound healing rates did not differ significantly between foam-based and gauze-based NPWT systems when measured in centimeters at first dressing change for length (10.6 vs 16.5, P = .58), width (2.7 vs 4.2, P = .41), depth (2.2 vs 2.5, P = .78), and tunneling and undermining (both 0 vs 0, P = .82 and .79, respectively). No differences were detected in pain rating at first dressing change (3.2 vs 2.4, P = .77), cost of wound care ($510.18 vs $333.54 P = .86), or hospital length of stay (26.33 vs 14.8 days; P = .58), respectively. There were no differences in nurses' experiences in ease of performing dressing changes and mean time to perform the first dressing change for foam- or gauze-based NPWT systems: 32.3 vs 38.8 minutes; P = .52, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot study comparing the effectiveness of foam- and gauze-based NPWT systems, no statistically significant differences were found in patient wound healing, pain, length of stay, or cost of wound care. Nursing time and perceptions about the ease of preparing and completing dressing changes did not differ between systems. Additional research is needed to more definitively determine any differences in wound healing or nurse satisfaction using gauze- versus foam-based NPWT systems.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
22552107
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"