Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 5:04 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-28 @ 10:04 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00724750
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2015-10-19
First Post:
2008-07-25
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
True
Brief Title:
Comparison of Two Methods of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Sponsor:
University of Chicago
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective Randomized Control Trial Comparing Two Methods of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Gauze Suction Versus Vacuum Assisted Closure Device
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2015-09
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The current standard for negative pressure wound therapy is the Vacuum Assisted Closure Device (VAC), a commercial system that utilizes a computerized suction pump to apply negative pressure to an open-cell poly-urethane foam dressing sealed over a wound. The VAC system is effective but has some drawbacks:
* The system is expensive.
* There us conflicting data about the effectiveness of VAC therapy for infected wounds.
* VAC therapy is difficult to use (and frequently fails) in wounds with excess fluid drainage, and in wounds near body orifices.
Over the past 4 years, we have accumulated additional experience with negative pressure wound therapy using wall suction applied to sealed gauze dressings with about 30 patients. We call this method G-SUC and have used it when we have been unable to maintain a dressing seal with the VAC system (due to excess drainage or wound location), for management if infected wounds. We have found this method to be effective without any specific negative side effects.
Our specific aims are:
1. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and standard VAC therapy. Outcomes measured for each method will include the proportional change in wound size over 1 - 2 weeks.
2. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and VAC system in controlling wound infections as measured by the number of patients who are able to clear infection by 4 days.
3. Compare the failure of each method of therapy by documenting the number of dressing that cannot be maintained because of fluid or suction.
4. Measure and compare the cost of wound treatment with the two methods including direct cost and time spent at the bed side performing the dressing change.
Our hypotheses are:
1. G-SUC and VAC are equivalent for the treatment of uncomplicated wounds in the acute care, in-patient setting.
2. G-SUC is more effective than VAC for management of infected wounds.
3. G-SUC is more versatile than VAC, and functional G-SUC dressings can be maintained in situations where functional VAC dressings cannot.
4. Negative pressure therapy with G-SUC is less costly than VAC.
* The system is expensive.
* There us conflicting data about the effectiveness of VAC therapy for infected wounds.
* VAC therapy is difficult to use (and frequently fails) in wounds with excess fluid drainage, and in wounds near body orifices.
Over the past 4 years, we have accumulated additional experience with negative pressure wound therapy using wall suction applied to sealed gauze dressings with about 30 patients. We call this method G-SUC and have used it when we have been unable to maintain a dressing seal with the VAC system (due to excess drainage or wound location), for management if infected wounds. We have found this method to be effective without any specific negative side effects.
Our specific aims are:
1. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and standard VAC therapy. Outcomes measured for each method will include the proportional change in wound size over 1 - 2 weeks.
2. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and VAC system in controlling wound infections as measured by the number of patients who are able to clear infection by 4 days.
3. Compare the failure of each method of therapy by documenting the number of dressing that cannot be maintained because of fluid or suction.
4. Measure and compare the cost of wound treatment with the two methods including direct cost and time spent at the bed side performing the dressing change.
Our hypotheses are:
1. G-SUC and VAC are equivalent for the treatment of uncomplicated wounds in the acute care, in-patient setting.
2. G-SUC is more effective than VAC for management of infected wounds.
3. G-SUC is more versatile than VAC, and functional G-SUC dressings can be maintained in situations where functional VAC dressings cannot.
4. Negative pressure therapy with G-SUC is less costly than VAC.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: