Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

High tech wound treatment ‘no better than regular dressings’

  • 1 Comment

High tech treatment of open leg wounds is no better than using regular dressings, new research suggests.

The UK study found that patient recovery was the same whether a sophisticated Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) device was used or just a standard dressing.

“Our study did not find any benefit of using negative pressure devices”

Matt Costa

The research by the universities of Warwick and Oxford looked at 460 patients with an “open” fracture of the leg, where the bone had broken through the skin.

Over a year, researchers compared the level of disability, rate of infection and quality of life in patients treated with NPWT against those treated with standard dressings.

They noted that, in severe open leg fractures, infection rates could be up to 27%, which both affected patient recovery and increased healthcare costs due to longer hospital stays.

NPWT devices work by creating a vacuum using a suction pump that removes blood and fluid that may collect in a wound. The vacuum may also encourage the formation of granulation (healing) tissue, highlighted the study authors in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

However, the research team found no evidence that the high-tech NPWT devices reduced the patients’ disability at 12 months, compared to standard treatment.

Lead author Professor Matt Costa, from Oxford University, said: “Our study did not find any benefit of using negative pressure devices in the treatment of these very serious injuries.

“Our research has implications for both patients and healthcare systems with regard to the management of severe open fractures,” he said.

“Clinical guidelines around the world recommended the use of these devices for open fracture wounds”

Julie Bruce

Study co-author Professor Julie Bruce, from Warwick Medical School, said: “Before this study there was only one small randomised clinical trial comparing standard wound dressings with the devices which suggested negative-pressure wound therapy improved patient outcomes.”

But she noted that the previous research was only carried out at one trauma centre and only included 59 patients.

“Despite the lack of strong evidence, clinical guidelines around the world recommended the use of these devices for open fracture wounds. These guidelines will need updating,” she said.

Because the type of dressing was clearly visible it had not possible to do a blind study of participants and surgeons. However, the surgical and healthcare team were not involved in any outcome assessments, the study authors said.

The primary method of measurement was a questionnaire given to the patients to rate their level of disability one year after they sustained their injury. Wound photographs were also taken at six weeks and reviewed by independent clinicians.

The questionnaire results were 45.5 (negative pressure) versus 42.4 (standard dressings) points out of a possible 100 where zero represents normal function and 100 complete disability.

This project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • The typical wound requires new dressing every 3-5 days. At glance, it appears cheap as peanuts but considering the multiple changes and the time spent on the procedure, maybe NPT is just cheaper?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.