Cath Lab Digest

Login to Download
PDF version

In the present study, it was shown that the expression of CGRP and substance P in the wound edge was more pronounced in wounds treated with NPWT than control wounds and more pronounced after removing foam compared to gauze dressings when used in NPWT. This may confirm previous reports that granulation tissue grows into foam but not into gauze and the clinical observation that dressing removal after NPWT using foam is more painful than dressing removal after NPWT using gauze. The use of gauze may be one way of reducing the problem of pain during dressing changes in NPWT.

References

1. Campbell PE, Smith GS, Smith JM. Retrospective clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int Wound J. 2008;5(2):280–286.

2. Borgquist O, Gustafsson L, Ingemansson R, Malmsjö M. Tissue ingrowth into foam but not into gauze during negative pressure wound therapy. WOUNDS. 2009;21(11):302–309.

3. Borgquist O, Gustafsson L, Ingemansson R, Malmsjö M. Micro- and macromechanical effects on the wound bed by negative pressure wound therapy using gauze and foam. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(6):789–793.

4. Fraccalvieri M. Negative pressure wound therapy using the gauze and the foam: immunohistological and ultrasonography morphological analysis of the granulation tissue and the scar tissue. Preliminary report of a clinical study. 3rd Congress CO.R.T.E 2010; 4-6 of March (Personal Communication).

5. Demaria MG, Stanley BJ, Hauptman JG, et al. Comparison of Foam and Gauze Based Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on the Healing of Open Wounds in Dogs. Poster presentation at Clinical Symposium on Advances in Skin & Wound Care, San Antonio, Texas. 2009.

6. Jeffery SL. Advanced wound therapies in the management of severe military lower limb trauma: a new perspective. Eplasty. 2009;9:e28.

7. 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;123(5):1510–1520.

8. Gustafsson RI, Sjogren J, Ingemansson R. Deep sternal wound infection: a sternal-sparing technique with vacuum-assisted closure therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76(6):2048–2053; discussion 2053.

9. Zannis J, Angobaldo J, Marks M, et al. Comparison of fasciotomy wound closures using traditional dressing changes and the vacuum-assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62(4):407–409.

10. Bollero D, Carnino R, Risso D, et al. Acute complex traumas of the lower limbs: a modern reconstructive approach with negative pressure therapy. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(4):589–594.

11. Stannard JP, Robinson JT, Anderson ER, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high-energy trauma. J Trauma. 2006;60(6):1301–1306.

12. Krasner DL. Managing wound pain in patients with vacuum-assisted closure devices. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2002;48(5):38–43.

13. Morykwas M. Sub-Atmospheric Pressure Therapy: Research Evidence. 1st International Topical Negative Pressure Therapy ETRS Focus Group Meeting. London,UK: ETRS;2003:39–44.

14. Franczyk M, Lohman RF, Agarwal JP, et al. The impact of topical lidocaine on pain level assessment during and after vacuum-assisted closure dressing changes: a double-blind, prospective, randomized study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(3):854–861.

15. Boselli E, Duflo F, Debon R, et al. The induction of apoptosis by local anesthetics: a comparison between lidocaine and ropivacaine. Anesth Analg. 2003;96(3):755–756.

16. Fernandes ES, Schmidhuber SM, Brain SD. Sensory nerve-derived neuropeptides: possible therapeutic targets. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2009;194:393–416.

17. Benemei S, Nicoletti P, Capone JG, et al. CGRP receptors in the control of pain and inflammation. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2009; 9(1):9-14.

18. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al.