Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with an ultraportable mechanically powered device vs. traditional electrically powered device for the treatment of chronic lower extremity ulcers: A multicenter randomized-controlled trial

Wound Repair and Regeneration

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 173-180

  Armstrong, David G ^a   Marston, William A ^b   Reyzelman, Alexander M ^c   Kirsner, Robert S ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c California School of Podiatric Medicine   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICE; ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEG ULCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MECHANICS; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SMART NEGATIVE PRESSURE WOUND CARE SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VACUUM ASSISTED CLOSURE; WOUND CARE; WOUND CLOSURE; WOUND HEALING;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHRONIC DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LEG ULCER; MALE; NEGATIVE-PRESSURE WOUND THERAPY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 79952268839     PISSN: 10671927     EISSN: 1524475X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00658.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Wu SC, Armstrong DG., Clinical outcome of diabetic foot ulcers treated with negative pressure wound therapy and the transition from acute care to home care. Int Wound J 2008; 5 (Suppl. 2): 10-6. (Pubitemid 351814567)
2. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA., Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA 2005; 293: 217-28. (Pubitemid 40095873)
3. Margolis DJ, Bilker W, Santanna J, Baumgarten M., Venous leg ulcer: incidence and prevalence in the elderly. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 46: 381-6. (Pubitemid 34225402)
4. Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, Kirsner R, Lambert L, Hunt TK, Gottrup F, Gurtner GC, Longaker MT., Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen 2009; 17: 763-71.
5. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA., Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1704-10. (Pubitemid 41587449)
6. Vuerstaek JD, Vainas T, Wuite J, Nelemans P, Neumann MH, Veraart JC., State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg 2006; 44: 1029-37; discussion 1038. (Pubitemid 46107242)
7. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ, Marks MW, DeFranzo AJ, Molnar JA, David LR., Vacuum-assisted closure: state of clinic art. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (Suppl.): 127S-142S. (Pubitemid 44317777)
8. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J., Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 631-6.
9. Lerman B, Oldenbrook L, Ryu J, Fong KD, Schubart PJ., The SNaP wound care system: a case series using a novel ultraportable negative pressure wound therapy device for the treatment of diabetic lower extremity wounds. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010; 4: 825-30.
10. Fong KD, Hu D, Eichstadt S, Gupta DM, Pinto M, Gurtner GC, Longaker MT, Lorenz HP., The SNaP system: biomechanical and animal model testing of a novel ultraportable negative-pressure wound therapy system. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 1362-71.
11. Lerman B, Oldenbrook L, Eichstadt SL, Ryu J, Fong KD, Schubart PJ,. Evaluation of chronic wound treatment with the SNaP wound care system versus modern dressing protocols. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 1253-61.
12. Pocock S., Clinical trial (a practical approach). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1983.
13. Fong KD, Hu D, Eichstadt BS, et al,. Initial clinical experience using a novel ultraportable negative pressure wound therapy device. Wounds 2010; 22: 230-6.
14. ECRI, Negative pressure wound therapy devices technology assessment. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Baltimore, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
15. Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Doherty DC, Smithdale R, Steptoe A., Psychological factors in leg ulceration: a case-control study. Br J Dermatol 2009; 161: 50-756.
16. Apostoli A, Caula C., Pain and basic functional activities in a group of patients with cutaneous wounds under V.A.C. therapy in hospital setting. Prof Inferm 2008; 61: 158-64.
17. Leijnen M, Steenvoorde P, van Doorn L, Zeillemaker AM, da Costa SA, Oskam J., Does VAC increase the risk of venous thromboembolism? J Wound Care 2007; 16: 211-2.
18. Keskin M, Karabekmez FE, Yilmaz E, Tosun Z, Savaci N., Vacuum-assisted closure of wounds and anxiety. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2008; 42: 202-5.
19. Edwards H, Courtney M, Finlayson K, Shuter P, Lindsay E., A randomised controlled trial of a community nursing intervention: improved quality of life and healing for clients with chronic leg ulcers. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18: 1541-9.