Addition of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Standard Gauze Dressings for Acute Wounds in a Limited-Resource Setting
NCT ID: NCT02479542
Last Updated: 2017-04-26
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
NA
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-06-30
2015-07-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Traumatic Skin Loss
NCT05653297
Comparison of Wound Healing Between MedCu Dressings With Copper Oxide and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Treatment
NCT05215730
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Care Dressing
NCT03566641
Water for Reducing Pain in Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
NCT02820272
Study to Compare Negative Pressure Wound Therapy or Standard Dressings After Orthopedic Surgery
NCT02064270
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Application of WiCare Wound Pump to a standard gauze dressing will result in faster time to definitive wound closure and rate of healing in acute wounds from trauma, infection, or surgery as compared to standard gauze dressing without negative pressure.
Study Design A. Single center prospective trial to be conducted at Mbingo Baptist Hospital (MBH) a multispecialty hospital located in North-West Cameroon that provides complex surgical care.
B. Phase II C. Two arm trial with all patients with eligible wounds offered entrance into Phase II trial D. Blinding: Non E. Indication and patient population: Acute wounds secondary to trauma, infection, or surgical excision in adult patients (\>15 year old) F. Sample size: 100 total; based on Schoenfeld's Method to compare two-sample Log-Rank Test with Power of 80%, significance level=5% G. Random Permuted Blocks: Patients will be randomized in blocks of 4 using the following schema Treatment A) WiCare, Treatment B) Standard Dressing: AABB, ABAB, BAAB, BABA, BBAA, and ABBA.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Standard Gauze Dressing
Patients with wounds that meet eligibility criteria will be randomized, if randomized to the Standard Gauze Dressing Arm, a saline moistened sterile gauze will be packed into the wound with dry gauze and either tape or other means will be used to secure the dressing. The dressing will be changed daily and measured and photodocumented every 72 hours with the Wound Zoom system.
Standard Gauze Dressing
Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the control arm, only standard gauze dressings will be applied and changed daily. Wounds with the standard gauze dressings will be photo-documented and measured with the same variables every 72 hours. Wounds and dressing will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, and gauze dressings will be changed daily.
WiCare NPWT dressing
Patients with wounds that meet eligibility criteria will be randomized, if randomized to the WiCare NPWT Dressing Arm, a saline moistened sterile gauze will be packed into the wound and then the WiCare dressing and wound pump will be placed on the wound. The dressing will be changed, measured and photodocumented every 72 hours with the Wound Zoom system.
WiCare NPWT dressing
Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the simplified NPWT arm, the standard gauze dressing will be placed then the the WiCare NPWT dressing will be applied. Wounds and WiCare NPWT device will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, drainage in pump, integrity of air tight seal. Wounds will be changed by protocol with photo documentation every 72 hours for a total of 18 days or achievement of primary endpoint.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Standard Gauze Dressing
Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the control arm, only standard gauze dressings will be applied and changed daily. Wounds with the standard gauze dressings will be photo-documented and measured with the same variables every 72 hours. Wounds and dressing will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, and gauze dressings will be changed daily.
WiCare NPWT dressing
Following consenting of participant, the wound will be photographed with the Wound Zoom imaging system and measured for greatest length, width, and depth. For patients randomized to the simplified NPWT arm, the standard gauze dressing will be placed then the the WiCare NPWT dressing will be applied. Wounds and WiCare NPWT device will be evaluated daily for drainage, exudate, presence of infection, drainage in pump, integrity of air tight seal. Wounds will be changed by protocol with photo documentation every 72 hours for a total of 18 days or achievement of primary endpoint.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Acute wounds \<21 days from any soft tissue traumatic, surgical, or infectious cause.
* Wound size must be either
1. a minimum of 25 sq cm in cross dimension with a minimum wound depth of 1 cm at the deepest point or
2. a minimum of 16 sq cm in cross dimension with a minimum depth of 1.5 cm at deepest point.
* Wounds must have been cleaned and debrided of all debris, foreign body contamination (dirt, grass, bone fragments, other debris), necrotic tissue, and pus
* Wound should be considered stable (not evoloving) and ready for dressing changes every 72hours.
* Necrotizing soft tissue infection wounds will only be considered after control of infection through medical and surgical treatment and the wound stable enough for a dressing change every 72 hours.
* Aamputation stump wounds can be included if all other criteria fulfilled.
Exclusion Criteria
* A wound greater than or equal to 21 cm in either length or width at the initial measurement.
* A wound in the perineum: defined by the pubic bone anteriorly and the anus posteriorly.
* A wound with a visible blood vessel of \>3mm.
* The presence of known cancer in the wound.
* Acute burns or burns with skin grafts wound.
* Latex allergy.
* Expected mortality within 30 days of admission from co-exisitng medical or surgical condition.
15 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Stanford University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Sherry M. Wren MD
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Sherry M Wren, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Stanford University
Brannon Weeks, BA
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Stanford University
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, Eichbaum Q, Ingber D, Orgill DP. Vacuum-assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Oct;114(5):1086-96; discussion 1097-8. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000135330.51408.97.
Borgquist O, Gustafsson L, Ingemansson R, Malmsjo M. Micro- and macromechanical effects on the wound bed of negative pressure wound therapy using gauze and foam. Ann Plast Surg. 2010 Jun;64(6):789-93. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181ba578a.
Chariker ME, Gerstle TL, Morrison CS. An algorithmic approach to the use of gauze-based negative-pressure wound therapy as a bridge to closure in pediatric extremity trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 May;123(5):1510-1520. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a20563.
Orgill DP, Bayer LR. Update on negative-pressure wound therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127 Suppl 1:105S-115S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a427.
Wilkes R, Zhao Y, Kieswetter K, Haridas B. Effects of dressing type on 3D tissue microdeformations during negative pressure wound therapy: a computational study. J Biomech Eng. 2009 Mar;131(3):031012. doi: 10.1115/1.2947358.
Malmsjo M, Ingemansson R, Martin R, Huddleston E. Negative-pressure wound therapy using gauze or open-cell polyurethane foam: similar early effects on pressure transduction and tissue contraction in an experimental porcine wound model. Wound Repair Regen. 2009 Mar-Apr;17(2):200-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00461.x.
Malmsjo M, Ingemansson R, Martin R, Huddleston E. Wound edge microvascular blood flow: effects of negative pressure wound therapy using gauze or polyurethane foam. Ann Plast Surg. 2009 Dec;63(6):676-81. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31819ae01b.
Dorafshar AH, Franczyk M, Gottlieb LJ, Wroblewski KE, Lohman RF. A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):79-84. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c.
Dunn R, Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole T, Smith J. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):258-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.12.005. Epub 2010 Dec 25.
Campbell PE, Smith GS, Smith JM. Retrospective clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5(2):280-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00485.x.
Jeffery SL. Advanced wound therapies in the management of severe military lower limb trauma: a new perspective. Eplasty. 2009 Jul 21;9:e28.
Lee HJ, Kim JW, Oh CW, Min WK, Shon OJ, Oh JK, Park BC, Ihn JC. Negative pressure wound therapy for soft tissue injuries around the foot and ankle. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009 May 9;4:14. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-4-14.
Bagheri Nejad S, Allegranzi B, Syed SB, Ellis B, Pittet D. Health-care-associated infection in Africa: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Oct 1;89(10):757-65. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.088179. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA; Diabetic Foot Study Consortium. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Nov 12;366(9498):1704-10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7.
Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):553-62. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00001.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SU 34186
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.