Document Detail


Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in chronic wounds: Steps towards an international consensus.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22119531     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
AIM: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) has become widely adopted over the last 15 years and over 1000 peer-reviewed publications are available describing its use. Despite this, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. In order to respond to this gap a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In this communication the results of the study of evidence in chronic wounds including pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), venous leg ulcers (VLU), and ischaemic lower limb wounds are reported. METHODS: Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence, drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel followed by a formal consultative consensus development program in which 422 independent healthcare professionals were able to agree or disagree with the recommendations. The criteria for agreement were set at 80% agreement. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) classification system. RESULTS: The primary treatment goal of NPWT in most chronic wounds is to achieve wound closure (either by secondary intention or preparing the wound for surgical closure). Secondary goals commonly include: to reduce wound dimensions, and to improve the quality of the wound bed. Thirteen evidence based recommendations were developed in total to address these treatment goals; 4 for pressure ulcers, 4 for DFU, 3 for ischaemic lower limb wounds and 2 for VLU. CONCLUSION: The present evidence base is strongest for the use of NPWT in non-ischaemic DFU and weakest in VLU. The development of evidence-based recommendations for NPWT with direct validation from a large group of practicing clinicians offers a broader basis for consensus than work by an expert panel alone.
Authors:
S Vig; C Dowsett; L Berg; C Caravaggi; P Rome; H Birke-Sorensen; A Bruhin; M Chariker; M Depoorter; R Dunn; F Duteille; F Ferreira; J M Francos Martínez; G Grudzien; D Hudson; S Ichioka; R Ingemansson; S Jeffery; E Krug; C Lee; M Malmsjo; N Runkel; ; R Martin; J Smith
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2011-11-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of tissue viability     Volume:  -     ISSN:  0965-206X     ISO Abbreviation:  -     Publication Date:  2011 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-11-28     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9306822     Medline TA:  J Tissue Viability     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Affiliation:
Consultant Vascular and General Surgeon, Croydon University Hospital, London, UK.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Stereopsis and 3D surface perception by spiking neurons in laminar cortical circuits: A method for c...
Next Document:  Coagulation abnormalities in deceased donors are associated with unsuccessful human islet cell isola...