Effects of negative pressure wound therapy on wound infection and healing in patients with open fracture wounds: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the impact of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on wound infection and healing in patients with open fracture wounds. Computer searches were performed in EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of NPWT in open fracture wounds, with the search period covering the databases inception to September 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and conducted quality assessments. Stata 17.0 software was employed for data analysis. Overall, 17 RCTs involving 1814 patients with open fracture wounds were included. The analysis revealed that compared with other treatment methods, NPWT significantly shortened the wound healing time (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −2.86, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: −3.51 to −2.20, p < 0.001) and fracture healing time (SMD = −3.14, 95% CI: −4.49 to −1.79, p < 0.001) in patients with open fracture wounds. It also significantly reduced the incidence of wound infection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.23–0.56, p < 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001). This study indicates that in the treatment of open fracture wounds, NPWT, compared with conventional treatment methods, can accelerate the healing of wounds and fractures, effectively control infections and reduce the occurrence of complications, demonstrating high safety.     

Clinical outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation vs standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with or without instillation has been extensively applied for patients with multiple wound types. Whether NPWT with instillation is superior to NPWT alone is not known. This study aims to compare the efficacy between negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) and standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds. The authors searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials investigating clinical outcomes of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation vs standard negative pressure wound therapy for wounds. The registration number (protocol) on PROSPERO is CRD42022287178. Eight RCTs involved 564 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included finally. NPWTi showed a significant fewer surgeries and dressing changes (RR and 95% CI, −9.31 [−17.54, −1.08], P < 0.05), and smaller wound area after treatment (RR and 95% CI, −9.31 [−17.54, −1.08], P < 0.05) compared with NPWT. No significant difference was observed on healing rate, time to heal, length of stay, dehiscence, reinfection, reoperation and readmission between NPWTi and NPWT. The addition of instillation to NPWT could improve clinical outcomes regarding the number of surgeries and dressing changes, and wound area after treatment in patients with multiple wound types. However, because of the heterogeneity these conclusions still need to be further validated by more well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes.     

Effects and safety of atmospheric low‐temperature plasma on bacterial reduction in chronic wounds and wound size reduction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The use of atmospheric low‐temperature plasma (AP) on chronic wounds and its effect on microbial bioburden in open wounds has not been explored with a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed and PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which compared AP with no AP for the management of open, chronic wounds. The primary outcomes of reduction of bioburden or wound size were included. Meta‐analyses were performed; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted and pooled in a random effects model. Four RCTs investigated the effect of AP on chronic wound healing. Chronic wounds treated with AP did not show a significant improvement in healing (AP vs control: OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.89‐2.38; P = 0.13). Five further RCTs investigated the reduction of bioburden in wounds, but AP demonstrated no significant reduction of bioburden (AP vs control: OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.45‐1.62; P = 0.63). All nine RCTs recorded the presence of any severe adverse events (SAEs) in the 268 patients studied, with only one unrelated SAE identified in each group (AP vs control: OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.05‐19.96; P = 1.00). Use of AP in wound care is safe, but the retrieved evidence and meta‐analysis show that there is no clinical benefit of AP in chronic open wounds using currently available AP device settings.     

Electrical stimulation therapy for the treatment of pressure ulcers in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis on the effects of electrical stimulation therapy (EST) on healing pressure ulcers in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Nursing & Allied Health and Dissertation & Theses databases were searched for relevant English language articles from the date of inception to 31 January 2014. Separate searches were conducted in Google Scholar and academic journals specialised in wound care. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Studies were included if EST was used to treat pressure ulcers in individuals with SCI. A total of 599 articles were screened, and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta‐analysis with five studies demonstrated that EST significantly decreased the ulcer size by 1·32%/day [95% confidence interval (CI): 0·58–2·05, P < 0·001] compared to standard wound care (SWC) or sham EST. Another meta‐analysis conducted with four studies showed that EST increased the risk of wound healing by 1·55 times compared with standard wound care or sham EST (95% CI: 1·12 to 2·15, P < 0·0001). Because of the wide array of outcome measures across studies, a single meta‐analysis could not be conducted. EST appears to be an effective adjunctive therapy to accelerate and increase pressure ulcer closure in individuals with SCI.     

Topiramate as Monotherapy or Adjunctive Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Meta‐Analysis

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and debilitating condition for which clinicians sometimes turn to anticonvulsants as a treatment for symptoms. This study was a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that have assessed the efficacy of topiramate as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, compared to placebo, for the treatment of PTSD in adults. Prescribers may be reluctant to turn to topiramate, given the commonly reported side effects of impaired cognition, sedation, fatigue, and headache. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central databases for relevant trials. Five studies were identified as RCTs and thus met inclusion criteria; one additional nonpublished study was identified via phone contact with its authors. Of these six studies, one was excluded from the statistical meta‐analysis due to its high dropout rate (16 of 40 participants). One of these studies was excluded from a stratified analysis of symptom types because this subscale data were unavailable.  For overall symptomatology, topiramate showed a medium, but not significant effect, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.55, p = .082. Topiramate showed a small and significant reduction of hyperarousal symptoms, SMD = 0.35, 95% CI [0.029, 0.689], p = .033. Topiramate did not significantly reduce reexperiencing symptoms, SMD = 0.29, 95% CI [?0.019, 0.597], p = .067, or avoidance symptoms, SMD = 0.20, 95% CI [?0.105, 0.509], p = .198. Results did not differ significantly between veteran and nonveteran subjects, or between topiramate as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Further studies on topiramate will clarify its role in PTSD treatment.     

Cyclic negative pressure wound therapy: an alternative mode to intermittent system

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a novel mode of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) that minimises pain while preserving the efficacy in wound healing. A porcine model was used in this study. Wounds were generated in animals and treated with either simple dressing or various treatment modes of NPWT. The wound volume, perfusion level and vasculature status were analysed and compared among different groups. Clinical application was performed to evaluate the level of pain occurring when negative pressure is applied. Among the NPWT groups, the Cyclic‐50 group showed most decrement in wound volume, even though statistical relevance was not found (P = 0·302). The perfusion level was significantly increased in the Cyclic‐50 group compared with the Intermittent group (P < 0·001) and the Cyclic‐100 group (P = 0·004). Evaluation of blood vessel formation revealed that the Cyclic‐50 group showed the highest number of vasculature with statistical significance (P < 0·001). In clinical application, the cyclic group showed significant decrease in pain compared with the intermittent group (P = 0·001). The cyclic NPWT mode decreased patient discomfort while maintaining superior wound healing effects as the intermittent mode.     

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic wounds: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

A growing number of clinical studies demonstrate that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a feasible noninvasive method for improving chronic wound healing. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of ESWT compared with that of the standard care treatment for the healing of chronic wounds, irrespective of etiology, in clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of ESWT on chronic wounds with different etiologies from 2000 to 2017 were included in this review. The methodological quality of each selected article was rated using the Jadad scale. A fixed or random effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes according to the heterogeneity of the studies. The cumulative effect of ESWT on each outcome was illustrated using forest plots. Seven randomized controlled trials involving 301 subjects were included in this review. Meta‐analyses revealed that the use of ESWT as an adjunct to wound treatment could significantly accelerate the impaired healing process of chronic wounds. Compared with the control treatment, ESWT markedly increased the wound healing rate by 1.86‐fold (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.63–5.03, p = 0.0003) and the percentage of the wound healing area by 30.46% (SMD = 30.46; 95% CI: 23.80–37.12; p < 0.00001). In addition, the wound healing time was reduced by 19 days (SMD = ?19.11, 95% CI: ?23.74–(–14.47), p < 0.00001) in chronic wound patients. No serious complications or adverse effects were observed secondary to the application of ESWT. The above data suggested that ESWT as an adjunct to wound treatment, could more significantly improve the healing process of chronic wounds than the standard care treatment alone. More high‐quality, well‐controlled randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of ESWT in clinical practice.     

A retrospective cohort study evaluating efficacy in high‐risk patients with chronic lower extremity ulcers treated with negative pressure wound therapy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with standard of care on wound healing in high‐risk patients with multiple significant comorbidities and chronic lower extremity ulcers (LEUs) across the continuum of care settings. A retrospective cohort study of ‘real‐world’ high‐risk patients was conducted using Boston University Medical Center electronic medical records, along with chart abstraction to capture detailed medical history, comorbidities, healing outcomes and ulcer characteristics. A total of 342 patients, 171 NPWT patients with LEUs were matched with 171 non‐NPWT patients with respect to age and gender, were included in this cohort from 2002 to 2010. The hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by COX proportional hazard models after adjusting for potential confounders. The NPWT patients were 2·63 times (95% CI = 1·87–3·70) more likely to achieve wound closure compared with non‐NPWT patients. Moreover, incidence of wound closure in NPWT patients were increased in diabetic ulcers (HR = 3·26, 95% CI = 2·21–4·83), arterial ulcers (HR = 2·27, CI = 1·56–3·78) and venous ulcers (HR = 6·31, 95% CI = 1·49–26·6) compared with non‐NPWT patients. In addition, wound healing appeared to be positively affected by the timing of NPWT application. Compared with later NPWT users (1 year or later after ulcer onset), early NPWT users (within 3 months after ulcer onset) and intermediate NPWT users (4–12 months after ulcer onset) were 3·38 and 2·18 times more likely to achieve wound healing, respectively. This study showed that despite the greater significant comorbidities, patients receiving NPWT healed faster. Early use of NPWT demonstrated better healing. The longer the interval before intervention is with NPWT, the higher the correlation is with poor outcome.     

A systematic review of the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in the management of diabetes foot ulcers

Foot ulcers are a common complication in patients with diabetes. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a wound care therapy that is being increasingly used in the management of foot ulcers. This article presents a systematic review examining the effectiveness of this therapy. The review question is how effective is NPWT in achieving wound healing in diabetes foot ulcers? The primary outcome for this study was the number of patients achieving complete wound healing (secondary outcomes, other markers of wound healing, adverse events and patient satisfaction). A systematic literature review and tabulative synthesis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The review identified four RCTs of weak to moderate quality. Only one study examining NPWT in postamputation wound healing reported data on the primary outcome. These data show a 20% improvement in wound healing [odds ratios = 2·0%, confidence interval (CI) ?1·0 to 4·0] and number needed to treat = 6 (CI 4–64). No serious treatment‐related complications were reported by any of the studies. One study suggested a reduction in the risk of secondary amputation (absolute risk reduction = 7·9%, CI 0·5–15·43). Studies also reported an increase in granulation and wound‐healing rates in patients treated with NPWT therapy. No data on patient satisfaction or experience were reported. While all the studies included in the review indicated that the NPWT therapy is more effective than conventional dressings, the quality of the studies were weak and the nature of the inquiries in terms of outcome and patient selection divergent. There is a strong need for larger trials to assess NPWT therapy in diabetes care with different groups of patients and in relation to different clinical objectives and parameters.     

A non‐randomised,controlled clinical trial of an innovative device for negative pressure wound therapy of pressure ulcers in traumatic paraplegia patients

The conventional methods of treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs) by serial debridement and daily dressings require prolonged hospitalisation, associated with considerable morbidity. There is, however, recent evidence to suggest that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) accelerates healing. The commercial devices for NPWT are costly, cumbersome, and electricity dependent. We compared PU wound healing in traumatic paraplegia patients by conventional dressing and by an innovative negative pressure device (NPD). In this prospective, non‐randomised trial, 48 traumatic paraplegia patients with PUs of stages 3 and 4 were recruited. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 24) received NPWT with our NPD, and group B (n = 24) received conventional methods of dressing. All patients were followed up for 9 weeks. At week 9, all patients on NPD showed a statistically significant improvement in PU healing in terms of slough clearance, granulation tissue formation, wound discharge and culture. A significant reduction in wound size and ulcer depth was observed in NPD as compared with conventional methods at all follow‐up time points (P = 0·0001). NPWT by the innovative device heals PUs at a significantly higher rate than conventional treatment. The device is safe, easy to apply and cost‐effective.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for early distal gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Background: We performed a meta‐analysis in an attempt to answer whether short‐term outcomes and lymph nodes harvested after laparoscopy‐assisted gastrectomy (LAG) are comparable to those reported after conventional open gastrectomy (COG). Methods: Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with distal gastric cancer treated by LAG versus COG. End points were operating time, intra‐operative blood loss, size of wound, overall post‐operative complications, time to first flatus, time to start oral intake, hospital stay and lymph nodes harvested. Results: Six trials including 668 patients were included. For four of the 13 end points, the summary point estimates favoured LAG over COG; there was a significant reduction in intra‐operative blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD) ?115.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?159.16 to ?72.04, P < 0.00001), size of wound (WMD ?5.27, 95% CI ?8.94 to ?1.60, P= 0.005), overall post‐operative complications (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.85, P= 0.008) and hospital stay (WMD ?2.65, 95% CI ?4.97 to ?0.32, P= 0.03) for LAG. However, the combined results of the individual trials show significant longer operating time (WMD 112.98, 95% CI 60.32 to 165.64, P < 0.0001) and significant reduction in lymph nodes harvested (WMD ?4.79, 95% CI ?6.79 to ?2.79, P < 0.00001) in the LAG group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in time to first flatus, time to start oral intake, wound infection, intra‐abdominal fluid collection and abscess, anastomotic stenosis and leakage and pulmonary complications. Conclusion: The results of this meta‐analysis suggest that LAG for early distal cancer is a feasible and safe alternative to COG, with better short‐term outcomes.     

Open vs laparoscopic repair of full‐thickness rectal prolapse: a re‐meta‐analysis

Objective A re‐meta‐analysis of available data within the published literature comparing laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) with open repair (OR). Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane databases from January 1990 to October 2008. We searched the following MESH terms: ‘laparoscopy’, ‘prolapse’ and ‘rectal prolapse’. We used the following text words: ‘rectopexy’, ‘haemorrhoids’, ‘minimally invasive’ and ‘keyhole surgery’. The bibliography of selected trials and a Cochrane review was scrutinized and relevant references obtained. Selected trials were analysed to conduct a meta‐analysis. Results Twelve comparative studies on 688 patients qualified for the review. There were 330 patients in LR group and 358 in the OR group. LR takes longer to perform compared with OR. This difference was statistically significant [random effects model: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.63, 95% CI (1.14–2.12), z = 6.56, P < 0.001]. There was a significant reduction in hospital stay between LR vs OR [random effects model: SMD ?1.75, 95% CI (?2.45 to ?1.05), z = ?4.90, P < 0.001]. There was no statistical difference relating to morbidity, constipation, incontinence or mortality between the two groups. Conclusion laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and effective modality and is comparable to OR, however, there is still a paucity of randomized controlled trials within the literature regarding this subject. Until these trials are conducted, we would advise caution in deriving absolute conclusions.     

The comparison of two negative‐pressure wound therapy systems in a porcine model of wound healing

The purpose of this study was to compare two negative‐pressure wound healing systems (NPWT), ?75 mmHg with a silicone‐coated (SC) dressing and ?125 mmHg with polyurethane foam dressing (standard of care). In addition, this study compared the effects of two different dressing interfaces, SC dressing and gauze, with ?75 mmHg pressure. For both comparisons, two groups of five pigs were evaluated over a 21‐day time course. Two excisional wounds were made on each animal and NPWT dressings were applied. A canvas saddle was constructed to hold the NPWT device so the animal had free range of the pen. Dressings were changed twice a week and wound measurements were taken. Specimens for histology and gene expression analyses were taken on day 7 and 21. These data show that there is increased expression in a few genes associated with remodeling and inflammatory processes in the NPWT‐125 with polyurethane foam as compared with the NPWT‐75 with SC dressing. These two systems, however, are equivalent with respect to wound healing, histology, and gene expression over 21 days of healing. Further, we demonstrate that there is no difference in measure of healing between the SC dressing and a basic gauze dressing.     

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and conventional wound therapy (CWT) for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds. All English‐language articles on ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds indexed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and HealthSTAR published prior to June 2017 were included, as well as corresponding articles cited in reference lists of related review articles. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration''s “risk of bias” tool. Study design, subject demographics, wound aetiology, treatment protocols, assessment indexes, and follow‐up duration were extracted. The fixed or random‐effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes according to studies’ heterogeneity. Ten randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 473 patients were included in this systematic review and meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis showed that ESWT statistically significantly increased the healing rate of acute and chronic soft tissue wounds 2.73‐fold (odds ratio, OR = 3.73, 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.30‐6.04, P < .001) and improved wound‐healing area percentage by 30.45% (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = 30.45; 95% CI: 23.79‐37.12; P < .001). ESWT reduced wound‐healing time by 3 days (SMD = −2.86, 95% CI:‐3.78 to −1.95, P < .001) for acute soft tissue wounds and 19 days (SMD = −19.11, 95% CI: −23.74 to −14.47, P < .001) for chronic soft tissue wounds and the risk of wound infection by 53% (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24‐0.92, P = .03) when compared with CWT alone. Serious adverse effects were not reported. ESWT showed better therapeutic effects on acute and chronic soft tissue wounds compared with CWT alone. However, higher‐quality and well‐controlled RCTs are needed to further assess the role of ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds.     

Laparoendoscopic single‐site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living‐donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta‐analysis of reports comparing laparoendoscopic single‐site (LESS) living‐donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs standard laparoscopic LDN (LLDN). A systematic review of the literature was performed in September 2013 using PubMed, Scopus, Ovid and The Cochrane library databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses criteria. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used to measure continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) to measure categorical ones. Nine publications meeting eligibility criteria were identified, including 461 LESS LDN and 1006 LLDN cases. There were more left‐side cases in the LESS LDN group (96.5% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001). Meta‐analysis of extractable data showed that LLDN had a shorter operative time (WMD 15.06 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9–25.1; P = 0.003), without a significant difference in warm ischaemia time (WMD 0.41 min, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.84; P = 0.06). Estimated blood loss was lower for LESS LDN (WMD ?22.09 mL, 95% CI –29.5 to –14.6; P < 0.001); however, this difference was not clinically significant. There was a greater likelihood of conversion for LESS LDN (OR 13.21, 95% CI 4.65–37.53; P < 0.001). Hospital stay was similar (WMD –0.11 days, 95% CI –0.33 to 0.12; P = 0.35), as well as the visual analogue pain score at discharge (WMD –0.31, 95% CI –0.96 to 0.35; P = 0.36), but the analgesic requirement was lower for LESS LDN (WMD –2.58 mg, 95% CI –5.01 to –0.15; P = 0.04). Moreover, there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65–1.54; P = 0.99). Renal function of the recipient, as based on creatinine levels at 1 month, showed similar outcomes between groups (WMD 0.10 mg/dL, –0.09 to 0.29; P = 0.29). In conclusion, LESS LDN represents an emerging option for living kidney donation. This procedure offers comparable surgical and early functional outcomes to the conventional LLDN, with a lower analgesic requirement. However, it is more technically challenging than LLDN, as shown by a greater likelihood of conversion. The role of LESS LDN remains to be defined.     

Poly‐N‐acetyl glucosamine nanofibers for negative‐pressure wound therapies

The wound healing promoting effect of negative wound pressure therapies (NPWT) takes place at the wound interface. The use of bioactive substances at this site represents a major research area for the development of future NPWT therapies. To assess wound healing kinetics in pressure ulcers treated by NPWT with or without the use of a thin interface membrane consisting of poly‐N‐acetyl glucosamine nanofibers (sNAG) a prospective randomized clinical trial was performed. The safety of the combination of NPWT and sNAG was also assessed in patients treated with antiplatelet drugs. In the performed study, the combination of NPWT and sNAG in 10 patients compared to NPWT alone in 10 patients promoted wound healing due to an improved contraction of the wound margins (p = 0.05) without a change in wound epithelization. In 6 patients treated with antiplatelet drugs no increased wound bleeding was observed in patients treated by NPWT and sNAG. In conclusion, the application of thin membranes of sNAG nanofibers at the wound interface using NPWT was safe and augmented the action of NPWT leading to improved wound healing due to a stimulation of wound contraction.     

Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; PolyMem WIC) in NPWT. From October 2011 to April 2013, 60 consecutive patients with chronic leg wounds or surgical site infections after revascularization of lower extremities were randomly allocated to either treatment with conventional NPWT (control arm) or NPWT with an additional PMD (intervention arm). The primary outcome was wound healing achieved within 30 days, the secondary endpoints included: number of days between dressing changes, wound‐related pain, cost efficiency, and occurrence of adverse events ( ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399722). Forty‐seven patients completed follow‐up. No difference in wound healing was observed (p > 0.05) between both study arms. The additional PMD allowed significantly longer wearing times (days) between dressing changes (intervention: 8.8 ± 0.5, control: 4.8 ± 0.2; p < 0.001). Pain was slightly higher in patients randomized to NPWT alone (VAS score: 4.8 ± 2.9) compared to NPWT + PMD (VAS score: 3.0 ± 2.9, p = 0.063). No wound infections were observed. Costs were reduced by 34% per patient in the intervention arm. These results suggest that the combination of NPWT and an additional interface PMD is a safe and economic method for the treatment of chronic wounds, which requires significantly fewer dressing changes for a comparable wound healing.     

The impact of negative‐pressure wound therapy with instillation on wounds requiring operative debridement: Pilot randomised,controlled trial

Presence of bacteria in wounds can delay healing. Addition of a regularly instilled topical solution over the wound during negative‐pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce bioburden levels compared with standard NPWT alone. We performed a prospective, randomised, multi‐centre, post‐market trial to compare effects of NPWT with instillation and dwell of polyhexamethylene biguanide solution vs NPWT without instillation therapy in wounds requiring operative debridement. Results showed a significantly greater mean decrease in total bacterial counts from time of initial surgical debridement to first dressing change in NPWT plus instillation (n = 69) subjects compared with standard NPWT (n = 63) subjects (?0.18 vs 0.6 log₁₀ CFU/g, respectively). There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary endpoint of required inpatient operating room debridements after initial debridement. Time to readiness for wound closure/coverage, proportion of wounds closed, and incidence of wound complications were similar. NPWT subjects had 3.1 times the risk of re‐hospitalisation compared with NPWT plus instillation subjects. This study provides a basis for exploring research options to understand the impact of NPWT with instillation on wound healing.     

Platelet‐rich plasma for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: A meta‐analysis

Foot ulcer is a major complication of diabetes mellitus and often precedes leg amputation. Among the different methods to achieve ulcer healing, the use of platelet‐rich plasma, which is rich in multiple growth factors and cytokines and may have similarities to the natural wound healing process, is gaining in popularity. A systematic review with meta‐analyses was performed to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of platelet‐rich plasma for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers compared to standard treatment or any other alternative therapy. The electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were consulted in March 2017 with no restrictions placed on the publication date. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of studies and to assess their methodologic quality. Eight randomized clinical trials and two prospective longitudinal‐observational studies with control group were included. Platelet‐rich plasma treatment increased the likelihood of chronic wound healing (RR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.57, I² = 15%) while the volume of the ulcer (MD = 0.12 cm²; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.16; p < 0.01; I² = 0%) and time to complete wound healing (MD = ?11.18 days; 95% CI: ?20.69, ?1.68; I² = 53%) decreased. Regarding safety profile, platelet‐rich plasma did not differ from standard treatment in terms of probability of occurrence of wound complications (RR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.28; I² = 0%) or recurrences (RR = 2.76; 95% CI: 0.23, 33.36; p = 0.43; I² = 82%) but it decreased the rate of adverse events (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.96; p = 0.02; I² = 0%). Cumulative meta‐analysis revealed that there is enough evidence to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit. However, studies included presented serious methodologic flaws. According to the results, platelet‐rich plasma could be considered a candidate treatment for nonhealing of diabetic foot ulcers.     

Comparative study of the microvascular blood flow in the intestinal wall during conventional negative pressure wound therapy and negative pressure wound therapy using paraffin gauze over the intestines in laparostomy

Higher closure rates of the open abdomen have been reported with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) than with other kinds of wound management. We have recently shown that NPWT decreases the blood flow in the intestinal wall, and that the blood flow could be restored by inserting a protective disc over the intestines. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether layers of Jelonet? (Smith & Nephew) dressing (paraffin tulle gras dressing made from open weave gauze) over the intestines could protect the intestines from hypoperfusion. Midline incisions were made in ten pigs and were subjected to treatment with NPWT with and without four layers of Jelonet over the intestines. The microvascular blood flow was measured in the intestinal wall before and after the application of topical negative pressures of ?50, ?70 and ?120 mmHg, using laser Doppler velocimetry. Baseline blood flow was defined as 100% in all settings. The blood flow was significantly reduced, to 61 ± 7% (P < 0·001), after the application of ?50 mmHg using conventional NPWT, and to 62 ± 7% (P < 0·001) after the application of ?50 mmHg with Jelonet dressings between the dressing and the intestines. The blood flow was significantly reduced, to 38 ± 5% (P < 0·001), after the application of ?70 mmHg, and to 42 ± 6% (P < 0·001) after the application of ?70 mmHg with Jelonet dressings. The blood flow was significantly reduced, to 34 ± 9% (P < 0·001), after the application of ?120 mmHg, and to 38 ± 6% (P < 0·001) after the application of ?120 mmHg with Jelonet dressings. The use of four layers of Jelonet over the intestines during NPWT did not prevent a decrease in microvascular blood flow in the intestinal wall.