Negative pressure wound therapy for partial-thickness burns

Biological study of skin wound treated with Alginate/Carboxymethyl cellulose/chorion membrane, diopside nanoparticles, and Botox A

A hydrogel-based wound dressing with desirable properties is necessary for achieving functional skin integrity post-injury. This study focuses on preparing a hydrogel using Alginate/Carboxymethyl cellulose (Alg/CMC) as a base material. To evaluate its regenerative effects on full-thickness wounds, diopside nanoparticles and Botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) were incorporated into the hydrogel along with chorion membrane. The diopside nanoparticles (DNPs) act as a proangiogenic factor, promoting proliferation and regulating inflammation, while the chorion membrane facilitates these processes. Additionally, BTX-A prevents scar formation and aids in wound closure. The nanoparticles and hydrogel were characterized using various techniques, and their cytocompatibility was assessed. In vivo studies and quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis showed that wound area reduction was significant after two weeks of treatment with the Alg/CMC/ChNPs/DNPs/BTX-A hydrogel. Overall, this scaffold demonstrated potential for promoting tissue regeneration and new epithelization formation, making it a promising candidate for enhancing skin restoration in wound treatments.

Therapeutic Strategies to Reduce Burn Wound Conversion

Burn wound conversion refers to the phenomenon whereby superficial burns that appear to retain the ability to spontaneously heal, convert later into deeper wounds in need of excision. While no current treatment can definitively stop burn wound conversion, attempts to slow tissue damage remain unsatisfactory, justifying the need for new therapeutic interventions. To attenuate burn wound conversion, various studies have targeted at least one of the molecular mechanisms underlying burn wound conversion, including ischemia, inflammation, apoptosis, autophagy, generation of reactive oxygen species, hypothermia, and wound rehydration. However, therapeutic strategies that can target various mechanisms involved in burn wound conversion are still lacking. This review highlights the pathophysiology of burn wound conversion and focuses on recent studies that have turned to the novel use of biologics such as mesenchymal stem cells, biomaterials, and immune regulators to mitigate wound conversion. Future research should investigate mechanistic pathways, side effects, safety, and efficacy of these different treatments before translation into clinical studies.

Negative pressure wound therapy for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Management of the open abdomen is a considerable burden for patients and healthcare professionals. Various temporary abdominal closure techniques have been suggested for managing the open abdomen. In recent years, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in some centres for the treatment of non-trauma patients with an open abdomen; however, its effectiveness is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on primary fascial closure for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure (e.g. Bogota bag, Wittmann patch) in non-trauma patients with open abdomen in any care setting. We also included RCTs that compared different types of NPWT systems for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection process, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies, involving 74 adults with open abdomen associated with various conditions, predominantly severe peritonitis (N = 55). The mean age of the participants was 52.8 years; the mean proportion of women was 39.2%. Both RCTs were carried out in single centres and were at high risk of bias. Negative pressure wound therapy versus Bogota bag We included one study (40 participants) comparing NPWT with Bogota bag. We are uncertain whether NPWT reduces time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen (NPWT: 16.9 days versus Bogota bag: 20.5 days (mean difference (MD) -3.60 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.16 to 0.96); very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events (fistulae formation, NPWT: 10% versus Bogota: 5% (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.33); very low-certainty evidence) compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether NPWT reduces all-cause mortality (NPWT: 25% versus Bogota bag: 35% (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag (NPWT mean: 28.5 days versus Bogota bag mean: 27.4 days (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -13.39 to 15.59); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, reoperation rate, wound infection, or pain. Negative pressure wound therapy versus any other type of temporary abdominal closure There were no randomised controlled trials comparing NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure. Comparison of different negative pressure wound therapy devices We included one study (34 participants) comparing different types of NPWT systems (Suprasorb CNP system versus ABThera system). We are uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system increases the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 88.2% versus ABThera system: 70.6% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14); very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system reduces adverse events (fistulae formation, Suprasorb CNP system: 0% versus ABThera system: 23.5% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.92); very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (Suprasorb CNP system: 5.9% versus ABThera system: 17.6% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.89); very low-certainty evidence), or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 100% versus ABThera system: 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, wound infection, or pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available trial data, we are uncertain whether NPWT has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events (fistulae formation), all-cause mortality, or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events, all-cause mortality, or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as participant health-related quality of life, wound infection, and pain outcomes is required. We will update this review when data from the large studies that are currently ongoing are available.

A Comparative Study on Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Wound Therapy for Patients With Compound Fractures in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: Orthopedic surgeons face a difficult task in treating serious open fractures, which usually result in complications, morbidity, and even amputation. Compound fracture wounds were traditionally treated with a standard saline dressing. To avoid infection and problems during therapy, several studies found that open fractures require early skeletal stability as well as soft tissue repair. In favoring the above fact vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) is now undergoing a paradigm shift. With this background, this study aimed to compare the effects of VAC dressing versus standard wound dressing on compound fracture wounds.

Methodology: This study has been conducted as a single-blind randomized control trial among 128 patients who got admitted to the Department of Orthopedics, R L Jalappa Hospital attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Karnataka, India from August 2019 to November 2021. The study participants were randomly allotted into two groups negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard wound therapy (SWT) consisting of 64 participants in each group. VAC dressing was used on group NPWT, while normal saline wound dressing was used on group SWT. Both groups were followed up for a month after their discharge from the hospital. Frequency in dressing changes wound healing time, infection presence, and hospitalization days were all recorded and compared over one month. The data collection was done using questionnaires and the statistical analysis was done with SPSS version 21 (Chicago, IL: IBM Corp.).

Results: There was a statically significant difference favoring group NPWT compared to group SWT with a hospital stay, number of dressings required, wound size reduction, wound healing time, and deep infection rate (p<0.05).

Conclusions: The use of NPWT speeds up the healing of compound fracture wounds significantly. It is affordable and can be used as a substitute in resource-constrained areas to reduce infection and manage open fracture wounds quickly.

Review of History of Basic Principles of Burn Wound Management

Thermal energy is an essential and useful resource to humans in modern society. However, a consequence of using heat carelessly is burns. Burn injuries have various causes, such as exposure to flame, radiation, electrical, and chemical sources. In this study, we reviewed the history of burn wound care while focusing on the basic principles of burn management. Through this review, we highlight the need for careful monitoring and customization when treating burn victims at each step of wound care, as their individual needs may differ. We also propose that future research should focus on nanotechnology-based skin grafts, as this is a promising area for further improvement in wound care.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive negative pressure wound therapy in paediatric burn care: evidence from the SONATA in C randomised controlled trial

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes for children with burns by accelerating wound re-epithelialisation. Its effects on healthcare costs, however, remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NPWT from a healthcare provider perspective using evidence from the SONATA in C randomised controlled trial, in which 101 children with small-area burns were allocated to either standard care (silver-impregnated dressings) or standard care in combination with adjunctive NPWT. The primary outcome, time to re-epithelialisation, was assessed through a blinded photographic review. Resource usage and costs were prospectively recorded for each participant for up to 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and dominance probabilities were estimated and uncertainty quantified using bootstrap resampling. Mean costs per participant—including dressings, labour, medication, scar management, and theatre operations—were lower in the NPWT group (AUD $903.69) relative to the control group (AUD $1669.01). There was an 89% probability that NPWT was dominant, yielding both faster re-epithelialisation and lower overall costs. Findings remained robust to sensitivity analyses employing alternative theatre costs and time-to-re-epithelialisation estimates for grafted patients. In conclusion, adjunctive NPWT is likely to be a cost-effective and dominant treatment for small-area paediatric burns (ANZCTR.org.au:ACTRN12618000256279).

Negative pressure wound therapy for burn patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), which has been applied in various medical specialties to accelerate wound healing, has been the object of a few investigations. We explored the effectiveness of NPWT and the possibility of its inclusion in burn management guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing NPWT with non-NPWT treatments for burn wounds were extracted from PubMed. For the risk of bias analysis, all included studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the approaches outlined in the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Handbook. Outcomes such as graft take rate in the first week, infection rate, and overall complication rate were analysed. Six studies that included a total of 701 patients met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis revealed that the NPWT group had a significantly better overall graft rate in the first week (P = 0.001) and a significantly lower infection rate (P = 0.04). No significant difference in the overall complication rate was found. Our results indicate that NPWT is a safe method for stimulating healing and lowering the infection rate of burn wounds. NPWT can be part of general burn management, and its incorporation into burn treatment guidelines is recommended.

Randomized clinical trial of negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunctive treatment for small-area thermal burns in children

Background

The efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in the acute management of burns remains unclear. The purpose of this trial was to compare standard Acticoat™ and Mepitel™ dressings with combined Acticoat™, Mepitel™ and continuous NPWT to determine the effect of adjunctive NPWT on re‐epithelialization in paediatric burns.

Methods

This two‐arm, single‐centre RCT recruited children with acute thermal burns covering less than 5 per cent of their total body surface area. The primary outcome was time to re‐epithelialization. Blinded assessments were performed using photographs captured every 3–5 days until discharge. Secondary measures included pain, itch, grafting, perfusion and scar management referrals.

Results

Some 114 patients were randomized. Median time to re‐epithelialization was 8 (i.q.r. 7–11) days in the NPWT group and 10 (8–14) days in the control group. In a multivariable model, NPWT decreased the expected time to wound closure by 22 (95 per cent c.i. 7 to 34) per cent (P = 0·005). The risk of referral to scar management was reduced by 60 (18 to 81) per cent (P = 0·013). Four participants in the control group and one in the NPWT group underwent grafting. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in pain, itch or laser Doppler measures of perfusion. Adverse events were rare and minor, although NPWT carried a moderate treatment burden, with ten patients discontinuing early.

Conclusion

Adjunctive NPWT hastened re‐epithelialization in small‐area burn injuries in children, but had a greater treatment burden than standard dressings alone. Registration number: ACTRN12618000256279 ( http://ANZCTR.org.au).

ALGINATE versus NPWT in the Preparation of Surgical Excisions for an STSG: ATEC Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

A calcium alginate dressing (ALGINATE) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are frequently used to treat wounds which heal by secondary intention. This trial compared the healing efficacy and safety of these 2 treatments.

A case series of negative pressure wound therapy as a promising treatment in patients with burn injury

•

NPWT significantly reduced length of hospitalization.

•

Also had minimal complication.

•

This procedure can be an alternative treatment for burn patients.

Introduction

Burn injuries continue to be a global burden. Burn wound treatment often requires a long treatment time and often results in high morbidity and mortality. Until now, there is still no ideal burn wound treatment for all patients.

Presentation of cases

Here we report 3 cases of burn patients. Every patient underwent wound debridement and followed by installation of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) on the site of burn injuries. All of patients was discharged in a good condition.

Discussion

NPWT is an application of sub-atmospheric pressure that is placed on the wound. Today, the use of negative pressure therapy is a new strategy in managing burn injuries. NPWT can reduce the length of stay of burn patients that can be associated with faster wound healing, and reduce bacterial levels in burns.

Conclusion

The combination of debridement and NPWT in burn patients can be an alternative procedure because it can promote faster wound healing and reduce the length of hospitalization. Furthermore, this is the first report of NPWT usage for the treatment of burn patients in Indonesia.

A Critical Update of the Assessment and Acute Management of Patients with Severe Burns

Significance: Burns are debilitating, life threatening, and difficult to assess and manage. Recent advances in assessment and management have occurred since a comprehensive review of the care of patients with severe burns was last published, which may influence research and clinical practice. Recent Advances: Recent advances have occurred in the understanding of burn pathophysiology, which has led to the identification of potential biomarkers of burn severity, such as protein C. There is new evidence about the potential superiority of natural colloids over crystalloids during fluid resuscitation, and new evidence about components of initial and perioperative management, including an improved understanding of pain following burns. Critical Issues: The limitations of the clinical examination highlight the need for imaging and biomarkers to assist in estimations of burn severity. Fluid resuscitation reduces mortality, although there is conjecture over the ideal method. The subsequent perioperative period is associated with significant morbidity and the evidence for preventing and treating pain, infection, and fluid overload while maximizing wound healing potential is described. Future Directions: Promising developments are ongoing in imaging technology, histopathology, biomarkers, and wound healing adjuncts such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, topical negative pressure therapy, stem cell treatments, and skin substitutes. The greatest benefit from further research on management of patients with burns would most likely be derived from the elucidation of optimal fluid resuscitation protocols, pain management protocols, and surgical techniques from randomized controlled trials.

The discovery and development of topical medicines for wound healing

INTRODUCTION

Chronic, nonhealing skin wounds claim >3% of the health-care budget in industrialized countries, and the incidence is rising. Currently, two parallel trends influence innovations within the field of wound healing: the need to reduce spread of antibiotic resistance and the emerging use of health economy and value-based models. Areas covered: This review focuses on the discovery of drug candidates and development of treatments aiming to enhance wound healing in the heterogeneous group of patients with nonhealing wounds. Expert opinion: Nonhealing wounds are multifaceted and recognized as difficult indications. The majority of products currently in use are medical device dressings, or concepts of negative pressure or hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Global best practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers recommend debridement, redressing, as well as infection control, and are critical to the lack of coherent clinical evidence for many approved products in active wound care. To accelerate wound healing, there is an emerging trend toward biologics, gene therapy, and novel concepts for drug delivery in research and in the pipeline for clinical trials. Scientific delineation of the therapeutic mechanism of action is, in our opinion, vital for clinical trial success and for an increased fraction of medical products in the pharmaceutical pipeline.

Study of negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunct treatment for acute burns in children (SONATA in C): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely used in the management of several wound types, its efficacy as a primary therapy for acute burns has not yet been adequately investigated, with research in the paediatric population particularly lacking. There is limited evidence, however, that NPWT might benefit children with burns, amongst whom scar formation, wound progression and pain continue to present major management challenges. The purpose of this trial is to determine whether NPWT in conjunction with standard therapy accelerates healing, reduces wound progression and decreases pain more effectively than standard treatment alone.

METHODS/DESIGN

A total of 104 children will be recruited for this trial. To be eligible, candidates must be under 17 years of age and present to the participating children's hospital within 7 days of their injury with a thermal burn covering <5% of their total body surface area. Facial and trivial burns will be excluded. Following a randomised controlled parallel design, participants will be allocated to either an active control or intervention group. The former will receive standard therapy consisting of Acticoat™ and Mepitel™. The intervention arm will be treated with silver-impregnated dressings in addition to NPWT via the RENASYS TOUCH™ vacuum pump. Participants' dressings will be changed every 3 to 5 days until their wounds are fully re-epithelialised. Time to re-epithelialisation will be studied as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include pain, pruritus, wound progression, health-care-resource use (and costs), ease of management, treatment satisfaction and adverse events. Wound fluid collected during NPWT will also be analysed to generate a proteomic profile of the burn microenvironment.

DISCUSSION

The study will be the first randomised controlled trial to explore the clinical effects of NPWT on paediatric burns, with the aim of determining whether the therapy warrants implementation as an adjunct to standard burns management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000256279 . Registered on 16 February 2018.

Mechanisms of Action of Instillation and Dwell Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Case Reports of Clinical Applications

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has revolutionized the care of complex wounds since 1997. The addition of instillation (NPWTi-d) adds several potential benefits and challenges to clinicians dealing with complex wounds in a hospital setting.

We surveyed the literature regarding the mechanism of action of these devices and reviewed our clinical experience to date.

Potential mechanisms of action include the removal of microorganisms from the wound surface, dilution of cytotoxic molecules, upregulation of angiogenesis pathways, and maintenance of a moist wound environment. As we have extended our use of these devices to more complex wounds, we have taken advantage of and observed potential mechanisms of action, including facilitated removal of microorganisms, dilution of inflammatory and cytotoxic macromolecules, additional wound hydration, and enhanced angiogenesis through an intermittent application of NPWT. We have also observed complications, including bleeding, loss of a seal along the wound, and pain.

NPWTi-d provides additional options for clinicians caring for complex wounds with favorable responses in wounds with significant contamination and those with poor inherent vascularity. Further studies to clarify the mechanisms of action, better define the wound types that would benefit, and techniques to manage complications using this device should further advance this field.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Agreement on what to measure in randomised controlled trials in burn care: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION

In 2004, nearly 11 million severely burn-injured patients required medical care worldwide. Burns cause prolonged hospitalisation and long-term disability. Although mortality has been reduced, morbidity remains significant.Burn care is costly and decision-making is challenging. A range of procedures are performed at different times after injury; new technology is emerging and alternate care pathways are regularly introduced. Data to guide evidence-based decision-making are lacking. Researchers use different outcomes to assess recovery, so it is not possible to combine trial information to draw meaningful conclusions. Early recovery measures include length of hospital stay, healing time and treatment complications. Longer-term outcomes include issues with function, cosmesis and psychological health. Reporting an agreed set of the most important outcomes (core outcome set (COS)) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will allow effective evidence synthesis to support clinical decisions. Patient input will ensure relevance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The aim is to produce a burn COS for RCT reporting. A long list of outcomes will be identified through systematic reviews of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Additional outcomes will be identified from interviews with patients over 10 years, parents of children of any age and multidisciplinary professionals. A two-stage modified Delphi exercise will be undertaken to prioritise and condense the list, with patients (n=150) at different stages of recovery. We will also include nursing, therapy (n=100) and medical staff (n=100). A reduced list will be taken to consensus meetings with families and clinical staff to achieve a final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

A COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity in burn care research, allowing more effective use of research funding and facilitating evidence synthesis and evidence-based clinical decision-making. Stakeholders will include journal editors, health commissioners, researchers, patients and professionals. The study has ethical approval and is registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/798?result=true).