Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Regulatory issues
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The worldwide prevalence of open wounds is estimated to be approximately 200 million per year. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), the application of a controlled vacuum to an open wound cavity, has been clinically demonstrated in developed nations to speed the healing time of open wounds by a factor of two or more, and to aid in complete recovery with less scar tissue. Use of NPWT devices has not been feasible in an limited-resource settings due to cost, bulk, and requirement for consistent electricity. This study aims to follow up prior clinical studies that have established the safety and efficacy of simplified NPWT, by assessing changes in wound closure time and wound contraction rate when simplified NPWT is used in a limited-resource setting.
Hypothesis:
Application of WiCare Wound Pump to a standard gauze dressing will result in faster time to definitive wound closure and rate of healing in acute wounds from trauma, infection, or surgery as compared to standard gauze dressing without negative pressure.
Study Design A. Single center prospective trial to be conducted at Mbingo Baptist Hospital (MBH) a multispecialty hospital located in North-West Cameroon that provides complex surgical care.
B. Phase II C. Two arm trial with all patients with eligible wounds offered entrance into Phase II trial D. Blinding: Non E. Indication and patient population: Acute wounds secondary to trauma, infection, or surgical excision in adult patients (>15 year old) F. Sample size: 100 total; based on Schoenfeld's Method to compare two-sample Log-Rank Test with Power of 80%, significance level=5% G. Random Permuted Blocks: Patients will be randomized in blocks of 4 using the following schema Treatment A) WiCare, Treatment B) Standard Dressing: AABB, ABAB, BAAB, BABA, BBAA, and ABBA.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Gauze Dressing | Active Comparator | Patients with wounds that meet eligibility criteria will be randomized, if randomized to the Standard Gauze Dressing Arm, a saline moistened sterile gauze will be packed into the wound with dry gauze and either tape or other means will be used to secure the dressing. The dressing will be changed daily and measured and photodocumented every 72 hours with the Wound Zoom system. |
|
| WiCare NPWT dressing | Experimental | Patients with wounds that meet eligibility criteria will be randomized, if randomized to the WiCare NPWT Dressing Arm, a saline moistened sterile gauze will be packed into the wound and then the WiCare dressing and wound pump will be placed on the wound. The dressing will be changed, measured and photodocumented every 72 hours with the Wound Zoom system. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Gauze Dressing | Other | Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the control arm, only standard gauze dressings will be applied and changed daily. Wounds with the standard gauze dressings will be photo-documented and measured with the same variables every 72 hours. Wounds and dressing will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, and gauze dressings will be changed daily. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Time to Wound Closure | The effect of simplified negative pressure wound therapy device use on the time to definitive wound closure or time to wound becoming appropriate for discharge for eschar formation. | 5-19 days following application of dressing |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Rate of Wound Contraction | The rate of wound contraction with NPWT for those wounds that do not reach definitive wound closure by study endpoint. | 5-19 days following application of dressing |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients must be at least 15 years of age,
Acute wounds <21 days from any soft tissue traumatic, surgical, or infectious cause.
Wound size must be either
Wounds must have been cleaned and debrided of all debris, foreign body contamination (dirt, grass, bone fragments, other debris), necrotic tissue, and pus
Wound should be considered stable (not evoloving) and ready for dressing changes every 72hours.
Necrotizing soft tissue infection wounds will only be considered after control of infection through medical and surgical treatment and the wound stable enough for a dressing change every 72 hours.
Aamputation stump wounds can be included if all other criteria fulfilled.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Sherry M Wren, MD | Stanford University | Principal Investigator |
| Brannon Weeks, BA | Stanford University | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15457017 | Background | Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, Eichbaum Q, Ingber D, Orgill DP. Vacuum-assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Oct;114(5):1086-96; discussion 1097-8. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000135330.51408.97. | |
| 20489409 | Background | Borgquist O, Gustafsson L, Ingemansson R, Malmsjo M. Micro- and macromechanical effects on the wound bed of negative pressure wound therapy using gauze and foam. Ann Plast Surg. 2010 Jun;64(6):789-93. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181ba578a. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| WiCare NPWT dressing | Device | Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the simplified NPWT arm, the standard gauze dressing will be placed then the the WiCare NPWT dressing will be applied. Wounds and WiCare NPWT device will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, drainage in pump, integrity of air tight seal. Wounds will be changed by protocol with photo documentation every 72 hours for a total of 18 days or achievement of primary endpoint. |
|
| 19407624 | Background | Chariker ME, Gerstle TL, Morrison CS. An algorithmic approach to the use of gauze-based negative-pressure wound therapy as a bridge to closure in pediatric extremity trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 May;123(5):1510-1520. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a20563. |
| 21200280 | Background | Orgill DP, Bayer LR. Update on negative-pressure wound therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127 Suppl 1:105S-115S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a427. |
| 19154071 | Background | Wilkes R, Zhao Y, Kieswetter K, Haridas B. Effects of dressing type on 3D tissue microdeformations during negative pressure wound therapy: a computational study. J Biomech Eng. 2009 Mar;131(3):031012. doi: 10.1115/1.2947358. |
| 19320888 | Background | Malmsjo M, Ingemansson R, Martin R, Huddleston E. Negative-pressure wound therapy using gauze or open-cell polyurethane foam: similar early effects on pressure transduction and tissue contraction in an experimental porcine wound model. Wound Repair Regen. 2009 Mar-Apr;17(2):200-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00461.x. |
| 19887926 | Background | Malmsjo M, Ingemansson R, Martin R, Huddleston E. Wound edge microvascular blood flow: effects of negative pressure wound therapy using gauze or polyurethane foam. Ann Plast Surg. 2009 Dec;63(6):676-81. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31819ae01b. |
| 21712704 | Background | Dorafshar AH, Franczyk M, Gottlieb LJ, Wroblewski KE, Lohman RF. A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):79-84. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c. |
| 21187174 | Background | Dunn R, Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole T, Smith J. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):258-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.12.005. Epub 2010 Dec 25. |
| 18494633 | Background | Campbell PE, Smith GS, Smith JM. Retrospective clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5(2):280-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00485.x. |
| 19696875 | Background | Jeffery SL. Advanced wound therapies in the management of severe military lower limb trauma: a new perspective. Eplasty. 2009 Jul 21;9:e28. |
| 19426531 | Background | Lee HJ, Kim JW, Oh CW, Min WK, Shon OJ, Oh JK, Park BC, Ihn JC. Negative pressure wound therapy for soft tissue injuries around the foot and ankle. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009 May 9;4:14. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-4-14. |
| 22084514 | Background | Bagheri Nejad S, Allegranzi B, Syed SB, Ellis B, Pittet D. Health-care-associated infection in Africa: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Oct 1;89(10):757-65. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.088179. Epub 2011 Jul 20. |
| 16291063 | Background | Armstrong DG, Lavery LA; Diabetic Foot Study Consortium. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Nov 12;366(9498):1704-10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7. |
| 9188970 | Background | 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 Jun;38(6):553-62. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00001. |