Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2016
Comparison of two different vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) treatments of multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds in the same extremity.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uğurlar Meriç, Sönmez Mesut Mehmet, Armağan Raffi, Eren Osman Tuğrul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two different vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) applications in one center between two groups of patients with Wagner Grade 3-4 multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds.
METHODS: The study was a randomized-controlled, prospective investigation between two groups of patients with Wagner Grade 3-4 multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds at single extremity. There were 10 patients in the first group receiving VAC treatment by means of Y-connector and 11 patients in the second group receiving bridge-VAC treatment.
RESULTS: There were no significant difference in Revised Foot Function Index scores and total treatment costs between the both groups. The cost of the VAC dressing supplies in one session of the dressings was lower in the bridge-VAC group.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although bridge-VAC treatment seems to be an alternative method to the VAC treatment by means of Y-connector, we found no superiority of one over the other VAC application for chronic diabetic foot wounds.
METHODS: The study was a randomized-controlled, prospective investigation between two groups of patients with Wagner Grade 3-4 multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds at single extremity. There were 10 patients in the first group receiving VAC treatment by means of Y-connector and 11 patients in the second group receiving bridge-VAC treatment.
RESULTS: There were no significant difference in Revised Foot Function Index scores and total treatment costs between the both groups. The cost of the VAC dressing supplies in one session of the dressings was lower in the bridge-VAC group.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although bridge-VAC treatment seems to be an alternative method to the VAC treatment by means of Y-connector, we found no superiority of one over the other VAC application for chronic diabetic foot wounds.