A Descriptive, Qualitative Study to Explore the Pain Experience During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Postsurgical Abdominal Wounds
Pain during negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been reported in the literature. Purpose: The study was conducted to describe patients’ pain experience, pain-coping skills, and the effect of NPWT-related pain on daily life activities following abdominal surgery. Method: Using a descriptive, qualitative design, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 3, 2016 and December 26, 2016, in the surgical ward of a university hospital in Edirne, Turkey. Patients aged ≥18, receiving NPWT, who had at least 1 dressing change, and with no diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or neurological disease were included. Interviews were conducted at the patients’ bedside 1 day after wound debridement. All wounds were covered with the NPWT black foam dressing, and NPWT settings were -50 mm Hg to -125 mm Hg. One (1) researcher led the interviews using a voice-recorder while 2 researchers observed and took notes. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi’s phenomenological method. Results: The themes identified were: 1) pain experience, 2) pain coping, 3) pain prevention, and 4) affects daily life activity. Patients mostly reported pain during foam dressing changes and wrap removal unless the dressing change occurred while receiving anesthesia. Self-applied pain-coping strategies between dressing changes included limiting mobility, trying not to cough, applying pressure, or walking; these strategies were mostly ineffective. The results are supported by many findings from other studies investigating the effects of NPWT on patient pain. Conclusion: This study provides further insight into the patients’ wound pain experiences during NPWT and its effect on daily activities. Increased awareness about NPWT-associated pain and pain control measures as well as qualitative and controlled quantitative studies are needed. Inservice training and educational meetings should be conducted at surgical clinics to expand surgical nurse and physician knowledge and awareness of how to efficiently manage pain during NPWT treatment and related procedures.
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an adjunct wound treatment method. To achieve negative pressure on the wound surface, foam dressing material is inserted into the wound, covered with an adhesive wrap, and then a small hole is cut to attach the foam to a suction pump and canister with a suction tube.1 A systematic review2 has shown improved quality of life with NPWT compared with standard wound care using gauze dressing, and an observational study3 reported better quality of life than with conventional wound therapy involving wound irrigation and saline dressing is possible for patients undergoing bariatric abdominoplasty wound management when NPWT is applied. A pilot study4 on quality of life after NPWT (N = 21) showed NPWT benefits include fewer dressing changes and a better social life than with standard wound treatment with gauze dressing. According to a randomized, controlled trial5 (RCT) involving the treatment of chronic leg ulcers, NPWT-managed wounds afforded patients increased life quality by the end of treatment.
Despite these positive outcomes, reviews of the literature6,7 regarding patients’ experiences show varying side effects of this therapy such as pain, stress, and anxiety. A qualitative study8 on patient perspectives mentions other negative impacts of this treatment such as sleep disturbances and feelings of distress. Qualitative research by Fagerdahl9 shows patients undergoing NPWT felt stress relative to the care environment and dressing change process. Pain has been shown in an explorative qualitative study10 to be another disadvantage for patients treated with NPWT. In a retrospective study by Schimp et al,11 67% of patients had pain during foam dressing changes that required management involving oral analgesics. Pain has been shown in qualitative and descriptive studies10,12 to occur mostly during wound debridement, dressing change, and adhesive wrap removal; as a result of sitting for a long time in the same position; or because treatment involved a high negative pressure level. According to a review of the literature,13 pain also negatively affects patients’ physical activities and psychological well-being. According to a prospective study,14 patients with higher acute pain (>8 pain rating) at the first 2 postoperative days experienced slower wound healing. In a retrospective study by Apostoli and Caula,15 patients had to be given a break during treatment because of severe pain during NPWT (ie, 5 of 25 patients requested to interrupt the NPWT due to pain; average pain score 6.2 ± 2.8.) Pain also can cause stress and affect patients’ daily lives. In a qualitative study, Abbotts16 noted NPWT was experienced as stressful by patients in terms of the impacts on their daily life.
Because nurses play a pivotal role in pain assessment, it is important for them to consider the patient’s pain experience in order to increase patient adherence with treatment and improve quality of life. Factors such as pain, sleep disturbances, and immobility can affect the quality of a patient’s life; thus, psychological factors should be considered with this treatment.17,18 In recent years, a variety of research,4,6,13 including a case series study19 has been conducted to explore the effects of NPWT on patients’ quality of life and pain severity. However, patients’ pain-coping skills and the daily life activities that are affected warrant additional research. The aim of this study was to explore the pain experiences of patients undergoing NPWT, including their pain-coping skills, and the effects of this pain on their daily life activities during NPWT.
Setting and participants. This descriptive, qualitative study was conducted in the surgical ward of a university hospital in the city of Edirne in the Eastern Thrace region of Turkey. This clinic has a 48-bed patient capacity, and each room has 1 or 2 beds. Data were collected between April 3, 2016, and December 26, 2016. After reviewing qualitative studies9,10 involving NPWT in the literature, a purposeful sampling technique was used to identify patients to include in the study. Inclusion criteria stipulated participants should be >18 years of age, willing to participate in the study, receiving NPWT in the abdominal area for the first time, not diagnosed with diabetes mellitus or neurological disease, and physically and mentally able to participate in the interview; participants also had to have undergone at least 1 dressing change following wound debridement before the study interview.
Ethical considerations. Written permission to conduct the study was obtained from the head of the General Surgery Department and the hospital directorship. The study was approved by the ethical review board of the authors’ institution. Before the interviews, patients were informed about the aim, the context of the study, and any voice recording and confidentiality issues that needed to be addressed. The patients who volunteered to participate in the study signed an informed consent form, and they were told the information obtained would be used only for scientific purposes.
Procedure. Negative pressure was applied continually using black foam dressing at a level of -50 mm Hg to -125 mm Hg; the level of pressure was determined by the surgeon. Wound debridement was provided only during the first dressing change for all patients.
Study design. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews designed according to the phenomenologist guidance of Colaizzi20 to obtain patients’ pain experiences (see Figure 1). After the participants provided written consent, a 9-question interview ascertained personal (age, gender, education level, and chronic disease status) and NPWT characteristics (amount of pressure, type of foam, frequency and number of dressing changes, and days since therapy started). Face-to-face interviews were conducted at the patients’ bedside 1 day after the first debridement, including the dressing change in the operating room, once they agreed to participate in the study. Because most nursing procedures (eg, preoperative patient preparation, bed sheet changes, medications, and other care procedures) typically are performed in the morning and the afternoons are not as busy, the interviews were conducted in the afternoon to maintain consistency for the patients.
Interview process. All 3 authors (each with at least 7 years of clinical nursing experience and working as nurse academicians in the surgical nursing department of a state university) attended the interviews, which were recorded. One (1) researcher led the recorded interviews, and the other 2 observed and took notes regarding facial expressions and tone of voice, asking additional questions when necessary to ensure all necessary data were obtained (eg, if the interviewer missed an answer, another researcher could ask the participant to enlarge on his/her response). During the interviews, patients were encouraged to talk freely; the interviews took place in the quiet of the patients’ rooms to encourage them to express themselves more easily and so the voice recordings would be clear.
Patient pain severity was evaluated with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients were asked to indicate the intensity of their current pain level on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Patients also were asked to describe their pain experiences during wound debridement and dressing change; severity was not evaluated.
To ensure the credibility of this study, the voice recordings were listened to twice, and the consistency of the extracted meanings and key statements were reviewed by all authors to control the accuracy of the final themes that emerged. The researchers and an independent academician with surgical nursing research experience worked together until consensus was reached on the themes. When the themes and subthemes were decided, 4 patients were invited to approve them and comment on the results of the study.
Data collection. The collected data were entered on a spreadsheet in Microsoft Word.
Data analysis. Colaizzi’s method of phenomenological data analysis was used with the guidance of the literature.21,22 The steps followed from Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method are presented in Figure 2. Sociodemographic characteristics were recorded and noted but not compared.
Patient demographics. The 12 patient participants (mean age 65.91 ± 6.21) included 6 women. All patients had at least a primary school education. The patients had been receiving NPWT for a mean of 10.07 ± 3.75 (range 5–15) days and had 2 to 3 NPWT dressing changes per week. The average number of dressing changes for all participants was 2.25 ± 0.62. Key patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The length of voice recordings was 33 to 41 minutes, with a mean duration of 37 minutes. Mean current pain level was 4.83 ± 2.72. Four (4) patients used analgesics to cope with pain, and 6 of the patients were debrided and had their dressings changed under sedation.
Themes. From the data analysis, 4 overarching themes were identified: 1) patients’ pain experiences during therapy, 2) patients’ pain coping skills, 3) patients’ pain prevention experiences, and 4) effects of pain on patients’ daily life activities. These main themes, together with the subthemes, are summarized in Table 2.
Theme 1: Patients’ pain experiences during therapy. The first theme dealt with 2 subthemes. For the first subtheme, pain during treatment, patients gave information on the severity of their pain, initiating/enhancing factors, and the region, duration, and characteristics of their pain experience. For the second subtheme, pain during dressing changes, patients gave information on wound debridement, foam changes, and adhesive wrap changes.
For pain during treatment, patients quantified their pain using numbers. Patients were asked to give a number between 0 (no pain) and 10 (extreme pain) to define the severity of their pain. Patients also combined quantitative and qualitative words in several different ways, and they characterized the factors that increased or decreased their pain. In the patients’ descriptions, lying down, coughing, standing up, sitting for a long time for meals, feeling cold, and the first NPWT application period increased their pain. When patients were asked about the location of their pain, they described it as being situated in different parts of the NPWT as well as spreading from the wound. They described that the pain was felt in different NPWT locations such as under the foam or around the foam area. The patients expressed different time periods for how long their pain lasted; these periods ranged from 2 seconds to 10 minutes. When speaking about pain characteristics, they described the pain as a “pulling-out” and “stabbing in and out” feeling (a shooting pain). Some of the patients associated the pain characteristics with the sounds caused by the negative pressure and movements inside the wound during NPWT (see Table 2).
Patients also reported pain during the dressing change (ie, when the foam dressing was being applied or changed, during wound debridement, and when the adhesive wraps were removed from the skin). The patients said that while watching the wound debridement, it was very painful when the surgeon put his or her hands inside the wound or touched the wound. Patients who were provided anesthesia before debridement and dressing changes reported they did not feel any pain. Patients who had not undergone anesthesia during foam changes described the experience of pain severity as including yelling and crying. The main causes of dressing change pain were swift wrap removal and the resulting traumatized skin (see Table 2).
Theme 2: Patients’ pain-coping skills. Patient coping mechanisms with regard to pain included using self-management, positioning, and medicine (the only option for some patients); others did nothing (see Table 2).
To self-manage pain, patients said they pressed on the painful area, covered the painful area because they thought the pain was due to cold, walked, tried to forget it, tried not to cough, and lay down on the bed. They suggested wetting the adhesive wraps before pulling them off the skin during dressing changes to cope with the pain. For positioning, the patients dealt with pain by lying on their side. Four (4) patients who needed medical treatment to cope with pain stated intramuscular injection (eg, meperidine), oral analgesics, and intravenous treatment (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were effective. Patients were unsure about whether the medical treatment was working; 3 of the patients who experienced pain said they did not do anything to cope with the pain, tried to endure, waited for it to pass, and did not inform nurses (see Table 2).
Theme 3: Patients’ pain prevention experiences. Patients’ pain prevention experiences were categorized into 3 subthemes: staying in the same position, changing position, and doing nothing. To prevent pain, some of the patients preferred to turn slowly, stay in bed constantly except to use the toilet, and avoid coughing, while others preferred to change position by walking (moving). Some stated that they did nothing because they believed they could not do anything to prevent pain (see Table 2), but 2 patients preferred to change position by walking (moving).
Theme 4: Effects of pain on patients’ daily life activities. The study found eating, breathing, sleeping, physical activities, and communication are affected by pain; therefore, these were selected as subthemes. The patients stated eating was not affected all that much by pain, but breathing was affected (ie, feeling “not able to inhale”). The patients who experienced pain said they could not sleep easily and needed analgesics and sleeping pills to fall asleep. The patients also reported on the effects of pain during physical activities; although walking decreased pain, the patients experienced pain when sitting and getting out of bed, so they did not even want to go to toilet because of that pain. When the patients experienced pain, they did not want to see anyone or talk with anybody. Because they could not tolerate listening to others talk, they believed the pain was affecting their communication activities (see Table 2).
Theme 1: Patients’ pain experiences during therapy.
During treatment. In the present study, some patients quantified their pain in numbers while others expressed the level as little or no pain. These results are similar to the literature. A qualitative study by Andrews and Upton23 explored the views of 50 patients undergoing NPWT and found 81% had minimal pain (0–3 points) during NPWT. In an observational study, 24 10 patients who underwent thoracic surgery with NPWT reported no pain associated with the NPWT system and dressing change. In a descriptive and follow-up study by Egemen et al,25 patients who had chronic venous ulcers and were treated with NPWT for at least 6 weeks stated they did not feel enough pain to interrupt their NPWT. On the other hand, in clinical reviews of pain and wound healing, pain during wound care and dressing changes made patients feel anxious and stressed.26,27 In the current study, some patients cried or yelled because of their pain. These vocal expressions are a response to pain that can cause more stress. On the positive side, in this study, pain did not affect the continuity of treatment.
Patients described pain when lying down, standing up, and sitting for a long time when eating meals, and they claimed their pain disappeared occasionally when they got up and walked around. Andrews and Upton23 found similar results; in their study, pain was caused by turning in bed, walking, and going to the toilet. Monsen et al10 investigated the experiences of patients with NPWT provided to the groin area after vascular surgery; patients stated bending over and sitting in the same position for a long time increased pain, but changing positions helped diminish the pain. Staying in the same position for a long time and changing positions also were the pain-enhancing factors mentioned by patients undergoing NPWT after abdominal surgery in the retrospective study by Nobaek et al.28
Patients in the present study also reported the first NPWT application procedure was very painful. According to the experimental and prospective clinical studies, patients feel pain especially during the first application of NPWT in both acute and chronic wounds.29,30 Apostoli and Caula15 reported 5/25 patients undergoing NPWT in the hospital took a break from treatment because of pain. According to patient reports, pain was less before therapy started and increased significantly after therapy had begun. In the study by Andrews and Upton,23 18% of patients who had undergone NPWT said the first dressing change was the most painful period of this treatment. These findings suggest patients should be supported psychologically or with analgesics during the first application of NPWT.
In the current study, some patients experienced instantaneous pain upon NPWT application that lasted between 2 seconds and 10 minutes. In a pilot randomized study,31 10 patients provided NPWT for diabetic foot wound care stated they had pain for <30 seconds when the foam collapsed and during the foam dressing removal, even though they may have had neuropathy that could have blunted pain sensation. In a RCT by Gonzalez et al32 involving 126 patients with a total 144 lower limbs ulcers, pain relief was better after 3 days of treatment and was associated with the limited systemic inflammatory response by the third day; the systemic inflammatory response was limited and edema was decreased among patients treated with a suction system at the bedside, which does not occur as part of ambulatory wound management.
Because pain is an individual experience, pain perception may vary from person to person. For some patients, pain was described as a pulling-out, stabbing, or tingling feeling, and others described their pain characteristics with sounds like “vıykk vıykk” and “gorrk.” Similarly, Andrews and Upton23 stated patients who had undergone NPWT interpreted the vacuum sound of the device as a pain feature and as a strange and tingling feeling. In addition, the sounds coming from the device were described as characteristic of the pain they felt when the vacuum was turned on.
Pain during dressing change. In the current study, patients stated they experienced pain during several stages — namely, the application of suction and during the removal of dressings and adhesive wraps. A black, foam-based NPWT dressing was used on all patients in the present study; 2 experienced pain when the foam dressing was being changed. Procedural pain during dressing changes is described in the literature and appears to be related to the type of NPWT dressing.7 According to the literature, including consensus reports about wound-related pain, patients experience pain during dressing changes because new granulation tissue that grows into the dressing foam is torn during dressing removal, causing pain.33,34 Several studies have addressed dressing type and pain. In a pilot study involving 20 patients, Panicker35 compared gauze dressing with the foam used in topical NPWT and reported minimal pain at dressing removal with the gauze dressing compared to the medical sponge. Fraccalvieri et al6 researched pain feedback among 31 NPWT patients by comparing gauze and foam; less pain was reported in persons who received gauze dressing. In the prospective, multi-centered study by Hurd et al36 (N = 152), 20% of participants experienced pain with gauze-based NPWT.
A case series3 and a pilot37 study on NPWT (N = 7) recommend that white foam should be used in order to reduce pain. According to the prospective study by Mendez-Eastman38 in which the guidelines for using NPWT are described, it is postulated white foam has smaller pores than black foam, thus restricting the growth of granulation tissue into the foam and reducing pain upon removal. These findings highlight that dressing type is an important factor for reducing pain.
In the current study, patients had 2 to 3 dressing changes per week, with between 50 mm Hg and 125 mm Hg of negative pressure applied. This is similar to previously published studies. According to the results of a prospective study,39 dressings should be changed every 2 to 5 days, and based on international consensus,40 a therapeutic range of -40 mm Hg to -150 mm Hg is recommended.
Similarly, previous studies conducted on patients undergoing NPWT report dressing changes every 3 to 5 days and using a pressure application of between -50 mm Hg and -125 mm Hg.36,41 In a pilot observational study by Stansby et al,42 3 NPWT dressing changes were performed per week; 22% of the patients described pain when the treatment started and 31% reported pain during dressing changes. Low-pressure NPWT (75 mm Hg) was explored in a case study with 3 patients by Nease,43 in which low pain levels were reported. In an experimental study by Borgquist et al44 that explored the influence of pressure levels during NPWT, a pressure of -125 mm Hg was required to remove exudate from peripheral wound tissue in 16 wounds, but this NPWT level can cause ischemia and pain. These results indicate negative pressure levels and dressing changes should be taken into account during treatment to control pain. If possible, the pressure level may be decreased as needed for patient comfort.
Some patients in the current study stated they were anesthetized during the debridement and dressing change procedures and did not feel any pain. Furthermore, patients who received anesthesia did not need to take any analgesics. Schimp et al11 noted that during the NPWT procedure on patients with massive wounds or extensive debridement, dressing changes were performed in the operating room under anesthesia or pain medications were used at the time of dressing change. In a consecutive case series study by Saadi et al45 that reviewed the medical records of 27 patients who had undergone intrathoracic NPWT, NPWT dressing changes were performed under general anesthesia, thus none of the patients felt pain; Begum and Papagiannopoulos24 performed NPWT dressing changes on 11 patients under general anesthesia and found similar results. In the cited studies, opioid analgesics (eg, morphine or fentanyl) and topical lidocaine also were used for pain management during wound care therapy.19,46 A retrospective study by Wolvos47 conducted among 5 patients receiving NPWT found using topical anesthetics on the wound reduced pain during NPWT. In summary, appropriate analgesia or anesthesia modalities can be used to increase patient comfort and decrease pain levels during treatment or dressing changes in a variety of wound types.
In the current study, some patients described feeling pain when the adhesive wraps were removed from the skin because the skin was traumatized skin and hair pulled off. In their RCT reporting 16 patients’ experiences with NPWT, Monsen et al48 also found removing the adhesive wrap was associated with pain and caused skin damage. In the pilot study by Ousey et al,4 a patient said, “It was like being waxed… it pulled the hair off,” similar to current findings. This patient recommended shaving the wound area. In their pilot RCT, Gillespie et al49 noted 69% of the 70 patients undergoing NPWT had skin complications such as bruising. The descriptive study by Kim et al50 explored 399 nurses’ perceptions of patient pain during dressing changes and found that although nurses were aware dressing changes caused wound-related pain, no pain reduction measures were employed. To prevent skin trauma and pulling out hair, patients can be shaven if needed and water can be applied to ease removal of adhesive wraps.
Theme 2: Patient pain-coping skills. Patients in this study suggested wetting the adhesive wraps before pulling them off the skin during dressing changes as a way to cope with the pain. Other patients dealt with pain by lying on their side. A study that investigated the perspectives of patients undergoing NPWT found patients did not change positions to prevent pain23 and another study that examined the experiences of patients undergoing NPWT found pain disappeared with changing positions.10 According to these results, some patients may avoid movement so patient mobility levels should be considered by health professionals.
In the present study, patients used analgesics to cope with pain; these patients’ dressing changes were not performed under anesthesia. In the retrospective study by Nobaek et al,28 patient-reported outcomes and long-term results of NPWT showed 6/8 patients used drugs to cope with pain. In the study by Price and Harding,17 64% of 135 patients undergoing NPWT for chronic wounds used analgesics in order to cope with pain; in another qualitative study23 exploring the experiences of patients undergoing NPWT, 36% of 50 patients stated analgesics should be used for pain relief. The authors recommend nurses give patients information about pain-coping strategies and use analgesics as needed to decrease pain levels and reduce stressful conditions.
Theme 3: Patient pain prevention experiences. In the current study, while some patients preferred to move slowly, stay in bed except to use the toilet, and avoid coughing to prevent pain, others preferred to change position by walking. In their critical analysis, Eriksson et al51 examined patients’ pain experiences after surgery and found some patients performed self-care by using distraction to avoid pain; some stated they did not want to disturb health care professionals while they were working. Similarly, 1 patient in the current study stated, “I don’t do many things to relieve the pain. I don’t tell the nurse about it.” (S, 67). Some patients tried to cope using self-care methods such as pressing on the wound, trying to forget the pain, not coughing, and lying down in bed in order to prevent pain. However, some of these pain prevention methods may cause unwanted effects. If patients try to not cough, this may retain secretions; if they try to maintain their position, immobilization may cause harmful results, all underscoring that patients should be encouraged to tell nurses about their discomfort and obtain professional help with pain management.
Theme 4: Effects of pain on patient daily life activities. The patients in this study experienced pain when sitting and getting out of bed; 1 patient did not want to go to the toilet because of that pain. In a multicenter RCT,52 132 patients reported NPWT negatively affected their normal activities and mobility. According to descriptive and prospective studies53,54 related to pain-relieving strategies, patients were not satisfied with their nurses’ pain-relieving strategies, and patients whose pain was not adequately controlled were not able to perform activities such as moving, breathing effectively, and coughing. The current study similarly showed patients had difficulty breathing, coughing, sleeping, moving, and communicating due to pain. According to a meta-analysis by Smetana et al,55 the general rate of pulmonary complications is between 7.7% and 19.7% after abdominal surgeries. In the current study, 1 patient reported, “I can’t cough because I don’t want to have or cause pain, so I can’t expel my mucus and my breath is diminished” (B, 49). Therefore, nurses should teach patients (especially those undergoing abdominal NPWT) about deep-breathing exercises and, if appropriate, coughing exercises to prevent pulmonary complications.
Patients in the current study who experienced pain said they could sleep only if they were provided analgesics and sleeping pills. In the questionnaire survey study by Upton and Andrews,56 33% of patients had sleep disturbances during NPWT because of pain, worrying about the treatment process, and sleeping in an uncomfortable position because of the device. In the RCT by Armstrong et al52 on the effectiveness of NPWT devices conducted among patients with noninfected and nonischemic diabetic and venous wounds treated in various settings, 25% patients reported interrupted sleeping periods because of NPWT, so nursing activities should focus on patients’ quality of sleep and provision of interventions if needed.
The present study also found that some patients did not want to communicate because of their pain. A qualitative study by Yılmaz and Gürler53 that investigated the pain control expectations of postoperative patients found patients recommended visitor restriction and that nurses should be more considerate; for example, because communication with a patient in pain requires specific skills, short sentences can be used during communication and support can be gathered from patient caregivers. In a review by Kösgeroglu and Ünver57 about patient education on NPWT, emotional support was underlined as an important nursing care intervention.
This study has some limitations to be considered. First, the sample came from a single center, so the results cannot be compared with patients from other facilities. Second, the findings are based on individual interviews with hospitalized patients undergoing NPWT applied to the abdominal area; the findings do not include patients undergoing NPWT in different anatomical locations or in patients trying to function at home. Also, the comparisons of current study results to those in the literature are not limited to abdominal wounds. Third, the small number of patients (12) limits the study’s generalizability to the full population using these devices (ie, all patients undergoing NPWT).
Implications for Nursing Education, Practice, and Research
NPWT is a globally recognized and accepted wound care therapy. In accordance with the literature, experimental studies provide evidence of the benefits of NPWT for some indications, and patient quality of life has been shown to improve by the end of therapy. Although NPWT has many positive outcomes, patients may experience varying levels of pain during the wound debridement procedure — for example, while removing the adhesive wrap from the skin, during the dressing change process, and while NPWT is in place. Pain may negatively affect patients’ physical and psychological well-being. Because pain causes stress and affects patients’ daily life, a more indepth understanding of patients’ pain experience during NPWT is needed. This may be facilitated by future qualitative studies, a methodology that may help to identify how pain influences patients’ daily life activities. Further RCTs (standard wound care versus NPWT) also are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different wound treatment methods on patients’ pain experiences and daily life activity changes. Because nurses play a vital role in pain assessment and management, it is important to consider patients’ pain experience to increase their compliance with treatment and to improve their quality of life. In accordance with consensus documents regarding wounds and pain,33,34,41 new campaigns and instructional meetings should be held to raise awareness among all health care providers (eg, physicians, surgical nurses, physical therapists) about pain during the NPWT procedure. Following this, inservice training and educational meetings should be conducted at surgical clinics to expand surgical nurses’ and physicians’ knowledge and awareness of how to efficiently manage pain during NPWT-treatment and related procedures.
A descriptive, qualitative study aimed to describe patients’ pain experience, pain-coping skills, and the effect of NPWT-related pain on daily life activities following abdominal surgery. Data from the interviews of 12 patients were analyzed and 4 overarching themes were identified: pain experience, pain coping, pain prevention, and effects on daily life activity. Pain was mostly reported during foam dressing changes and wrap removal. Limiting mobility, trying not to cough, or walking were the self-applied pain-coping strategies of patients although they were mostly ineffective. This study provided further insight into the pain experience of patients during the NPWT process. The findings showed pain experienced during NPWT negatively affected patients and their daily life activities. As pain affected patients’ daily life activities such as breathing, sleeping, communicating, and mobility, nurses need to consider patient pain levels together with their daily life activities.
The authors thank to the patients for participating in this study and providing their time.
1. Peinemann F, Sauerland S. Negative-pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(22):381–389.
2. Janssen AH, Mommers EH, Notter J, de Vries Reilingh TS, Wegdam JA. Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care on quality of life: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2016;25(3):154,156–159.
3. Limongelli P, Casalino G, Tolone S, et al. Quality of life and scar evolution after negative pressure or conventional therapy for wound dehiscence following post-bariatric abdominoplasty. Int Wound J. 2017;14(6):960–966.
4. Ousey KJ, Milne J, Cook L, Stephenson J, Gillibrand W. A pilot study exploring quality of life experienced by patients undergoing negative-pressure wound therapy as part of their wound care treatment compared to patients receiving standard wound care. Int Wound J. 2014;11(4):357–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01098.x.
5. 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(5):1029–1037.
6. Fraccalvieri M, Ruka E, Bocchiotti MA, Zingarelli E, Bruschi S. Patient’s pain feedback using negative pressure wound therapy with foam and gauze. Int Wound J. 2011;8(5):492–499.
7. Upton D, Stephens D, Andrews A. Patients’ experiences of negative pressure wound therapy for the treatment of wounds: a review. J Wound Care. 2013;22(1):34–39.
8. Bolas N, Holloway S. Negative pressure wound therapy: a study on patient perspectives. Br J Community Nurs. 2012;17(3):S30–S35.
9. Fagerdahl AM. The patient’s conceptions of wound treatment with negative pressure wound therapy. Healthcare (Basel). 2014;2(3):272–281.
10. Monsen C, Acosta S, Kumlien C. Patients experiences of negative pressure wound therapy at home for the treatment of deep perivascular groin infection after vascular surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(9-10):1405–1413.
11. Schimp VL, Worley C, Brunello S, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of gynecologic oncology wound failures. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92(2):586–591.
12. Upton D, Andrews A. Negative pressure wound therapy: improving the patient experience. Part 1 of 3. J Wound Care. 2013;22(10):552–557.
13. Upton D, Andrews A. Pain and trauma in negative pressure wound therapy: a review. Int Wound J. 2015;12(1):100–105.
14. McGuire L, Heffner K, Glaser R, et al. Pain and wound healing in surgical patients. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31(2):165–172.
15. 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 [in Italian]. Prof Inferm. 2008;61(3):158–164.
16. Abbotts J. Patients’ views on topical negative pressure: ‘effective but smelly’. Br J Nurs. 2010;19(20):S37–S41.
17. Price P, Harding K. Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule: the development of a condition-specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds of the lower limb. Int Wound J. 2004;1(1):10–17.
18. Persoon A, Heinen MM, van der Vleuten CJ, de Rooij MJ, van de Kerkhof PC, van Achterberg T. Leg ulcers: a review of their impact on daily life. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(3):341–354.
19. Agrawal V, Wilson K, Reyna R, Emran MA. Feasibility of 4% topical lidocaine for pain management during negative pressure wound therapy dressing changes in pediatric patients: a case study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(6):640–642.
20. Colaizzi PF. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: Vale R, King M, eds. Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;1978:48–71.
21. Sanders C. Application of Colaizzi’s method: interpretation of an auditable decision trail by a novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. 2003;14(3):292–302.
22. Edward KL, Welch T. The extension of Colaizzi’s method of phenomenological enquiry. Contemp Nurs. 2011;39(2):163–171.
23. Andrews A, Upton D. Negative pressure wound therapy: improving the patient experience. Part 3 of 3. J Wound Care. 2013;22(12):671–672,674,676–680.
24. Begum S, Papagiannopoulos K. The use of vacuum-assisted wound closure therapy in thoracic operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(6):1835–1839.
25. Egemen O, Ozkaya O, Oztürk MB, Aksan T, Orman Ç, Akan M. Effective use of negative pressure wound therapy provides quick wound-bed preparation and complete graft take in the management of chronic venous ulcers. Int Wound J. 2012;9(2):199–205.
26. Woo K. Wound-related pain: anxiety, stress and wound healing. Wounds UK. 2010;6(4):92–98.
27. Upton D, Solowiej K. Pain and stress as contributors to delayed wound healing. Wound Pract Res. 2010;18(3):114–122.
28. Nobaek S, Rogmark P, Petersson U. Negative pressure wound therapy for treatment of mesh infection after abdominal surgery: long-term results and patient-reported outcome. Scand J Surg. 2017;106(4):285–293.
29. Chiummariello S, Guarro G, Pica A, Alfano C. Evaluation of negative pressure vacuum-assisted system in acute and chronic wounds closure: our experience. G Chir. 2012;33(10):358–362.
30. Langer V, Bhandari PS, Rajagopalan S, Mukherjee MK. Negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunct in healing of chronic wounds. Int Wound J. 2015;12(4):436-442.
31. McCallon SK, Knight CA, Valiulus JP, Cunningham MW, McCulloch JM, Farinas LP. Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000;46(8):28–32,34.
32. Gonzalez IG, Angel MA, Baez MV, et al. Handcrafted vacuum-assisted device for skin ulcers treatment versus traditional therapy, randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2017;41(2):386–393.
33. Vuolo JC. Wound-related pain: key sources and triggers. Br J Nurs. 2009;18(15):S20,S22–S25.
34. Vig S, Dowsett C, Berg L, et al; International Expert Panel on Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT-EP). Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in chronic wounds: steps towards an international consensus. J Tissue Viability. 2011;20(1 suppl):S1–S18.
35. Panicker VN. A pilot study evaluating topical negative pressure using V1STA technology. Wound Pract Res. 2009;17(4):194–200.
36. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole TR, Smith JM. Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J. 2010;7(6):448–455.
37. Kieser DC, Roake JA, Hammond C, Lewis DR. Negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunct to compression for healing chronic venous ulcers. J Wound Care. 2011;20(1):35–37.
38. Mendez-Eastman S. Guidelines for using negative pressure wound therapy. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2001;14(6):314–322.
39. Wanner MB, Schwarzl F, Strub B, Zaech GA, Pierer G. Vacuum-assisted wound closure for cheaper and more comfortable healing of pressure sores: a prospective study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2003;37(1):28–33.
40. Birke H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al; International Expert Panel on Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT-EP). Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer)--steps towards an international consensus. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1 suppl):S1–S16.
41. Brinkert D, Ali M, Naud M, Maire N, Trial C, Téot L. Negative pressure wound therapy with saline instillation: 131 patient case series. Int Wound J. 2013;10(1 suppl):56–60.
42. Stansby G, Wealleans V, Wilson L, Morrow D, Gooday C, Dhatariya K. Clinical experience of a new NPWT system in diabetic foot ulcers and post-amputation wounds. J Wound Care. 2010;19(11):496,498–502.
43. Nease C. Using low pressure, NPWT for wound preparation & the management of split-thickness skin grafts in 3 patients with complex wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55(6):32–42.
44. Borgquist O, Ingemansson R, Malmsjö M. The influence of low and high pressure levels during negative-pressure wound therapy on wound contraction and fluid evacuation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):551–559.
45. Saadi A, Perentes JY, Gonzalez M, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure device: a useful tool in the management of severe intrathoracic infections. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(5):1582–1589.
46. Dewhirst E, Naquib A, Tobias JD. Chest wall rigidity in two infants after low-dose fentanyl administration. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(5):465–468.
47. Wolvos T. Wound instillation-the next step in negative pressure wound therapy. Lessons learned from initial experiences. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2004;50(11):56–66.
48. Monsen C, Acosta S, Mani K, Wann-Hansson C. A randomised study of NPWT closure versus alginate dressings in peri-vascular groin infections: quality of life, pain and cost. J Wound Care. 2015;24(6):252,254–260.
49. Gillespie BM, Rickard CM, Thalib L, et al. Use of negative-pressure wound dressings to prevent surgical site complications after primary hip arthroplasty: a pilot RCT. Surg Innov. 2015;22(5):488–495.
50. Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee YJ. A descriptive study of Korean nurses’ perception of pain and skin tearing at dressing change. Int Wound J. 2016;13(1 suppl):47–51.
51. Eriksson K, Wikström L, Fridlund B, Årestedt K, Broström A. Patients’ experiences and actions when describing pain after surgery—a critical incident technique analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;56:27–36.
52. Armstrong D, Marston W, Reyzelman AM, Kirsner RS. Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20(3):332–341.
53. Yılmaz M, Gürler H. Nursing approaches toward postoperative pain in patients: patients’ opinions [in Turkish]. Agri. 2011;23(2):71–79.
54. Shea RA, Brooks JA, Dayhoff NE, Keck J. Pain intensity and postoperative pulmonary complications among the elderly after abdominal surgery. Heart Lung. 2002;31(6):440–449.
55. Smetana GW, Lawrence VA, Cornell JE; American College of Physicians. Preoperative pulmonary risk stratification for noncardiothoracic surgery: systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(8):581–595.
56. Upton D, Andrews A. Sleep disruption in patients with chronic leg ulcers. J Wound Care. 2013;22(8):389–390,392,394.
57. Köşgeroğlu N, Ünver S. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy and the importance of patient education. Florence Nightingale J Nurs. 2009;17(1):48–52.
Dr. Ünver is an Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Surgical Nursing; Dr. Eyi is an Assistant Professor, School of Health, Department ofNursing; and Dr. Özkan is a research assistant, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey. Please address correspondence to: Seher Ünver, BSN, MSc, PhD, Trakya University,Edirne, Turkey 22030; email: firstname.lastname@example.org.