You are currently viewing:
Medela - Global
You can select an alternative Medela website in one of these countries:
Solutions
NPWT Insights
Time to read: 3 min.
Today’s healthcare providers face a dual challenge: drive healthy outcomes for their patients, and drive healthy outcomes for their institutions. As standards rise and budgets shrink, they need to identify tools and strategies to meet both of these challenges at once. In wound care, a pivotal solution is Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT).
The efficacy of NPWT (sometimes referred to as wound vac), has been proven again and again.
The efficacy of NPWT (sometimes referred to as wound vac), has been proven again and again. In a Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Literature Review of Efficacy, Cost Effectiveness, and Impact on Patients' Quality of Life in Chronic Wound Management and Its Implementation in the United Kingdom, by Othman, researchers point to “a substantial body of clinical and economic evidence” that wound vac therapy leads to faster healing, earlier discharges, and fewer readmissions.1
This occurs because wound vac therapy fosters a healthy healing environment. It promotes granulation tissue formation2, reduces edema3, isolates the wound from external infection4, and more. These factors not only support better patient health, they support business goals on the institutional level
Many studies reinforce how Negative Pressure Wound Therapy not only supports better wound healing, but also provides better experiences for patients and caregivers.
In one survey, Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: improving the patient experience Part 3 of 3, by Upton and Andrews, patients who had NPWT overwhelmingly considered the experience positive.5
In another study6, State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings, by Vuerstaek et al, both groups showed a significant increase in quality of life at the end of therapy and a significant decrease in pain scores at the end of follow-up. But importantly: The patients with chronic leg ulcers who used NPWT healed much faster and the costs related to their care were lower.
In yet another study7, The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial, by Braakenburg et al, patients with acute and chronic wounds using NPWT not only healed as fast or faster than those given other types of dressings, but NPWT offered the “important advantage [of] comfort for patients and nursing staff.”
The benefit of comfort was further supported by another study8, Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds, by Hurd et al. Researchers found that when gauze dressings were used with NWPT, four out of five dressing changes were both pain-free and described by nurses as “easy,” requiring an average of only about 20 minutes to complete.
These studies reinforce how Negative Pressure Wound Therapy not only supports better wound healing, but also provides better experiences for patients and caregivers.
The value of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy is not simply in the above benefits, but in its breadth of applications. Beyond those mentioned above, numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of NPWT in treating a host of other types of wounds, including:
Medela’s Invia Liberty NPWT System and Invia Motion NPWT System are designed to provide effectiveness, satisfaction, and diverse applications in all wound care settings, including hospitals and home-care environments.
To learn more about the versatility and convenience of Medela Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems, explore the Medela portfolio today.
1. Othman D. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Literature Review of Efficacy, Cost Effectiveness, and Impact on Patients‘ Quality of Life in Chronic Wound management and Ist Implementation in the United Kingdom. Plast Surg Int 2012;374398.
2. Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, et al. A prospective, blinded randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114(4):917–22.
3. Chen SZ, Li J, Li XY, et al. Effects of Vacuum-Assisted Closure on Wound Microcorculation: An Experimental Study. Asian J Surg 2005;28(3):211–7.
4. Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM, et al. EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. J Wound Care 2017;26(Sup3):1–154.
5. Upton D, Andrews A. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Improving the Patient Experience Part 3 of 3. J Wound Care 2013;22(12):617–2.
6. Vuerstaek JDD, Vainas T, Wuite J, et al. State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg 2006;44(5):1029–37.
7. Braakenburg A, Obdeijn MC, Feitz R, et al. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness oft he vacuum-assisted closure technique in the managementof acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(2):390–400.
8. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al. Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J 2010;7(6):448–55.
9. Jang JY, Shim H, Lee YJ, et al. Application of negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wound dehiscence after abdominal open sugery: a single center experience. J Korean Surg Soc 2013;85(4):180–4.
10. Liu S, He CZ, Cai YT, et al. Evaluation of negative-pressure wound therapy for patients with diabetic food ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017;13:533–44.
11. Gupta S, Ichioka S. Optimal use of negative pressure wound therapy in treating pressure ulcers. Int Wound J 2019;9(Suppl 1):8–16.
12. Dini V, Miteva M, Romanelli P, et al. Immunhistochemical evaluation of venous leg ulcers before and after negative pressure wound therapy. Wounds 2011;23(9):257–66.
13. Schlatterer D, Hirshorn K. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Reticulated Open Cell Foam-Adjunctive Treatment in the Management of Traumatic Wounds of the Leg: A Review of the Literature. J Orthop Trauma 2008;22(10 Suppl):152–60.
14. Nagy E, Juhasz I. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy — An Effective, Minimally Invasive Therapeutic Modality in Burn Wound Management. IJCM 2015;6(5):301–6.
15. Lance S, Harrison L, Orbay H, et al. Assessing Safety of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Over Pedicled Muscle Flaps: A Retrospective Review of Gastrocnemius Muscle Flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69(4):519–23.
16. Suh H, Lee AY, Park EJ, et al. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Closed Surgical Wounds With Dead Space: Animal Study Using a Swine Model. Ann Plast Surg 2106;76(6):717–22.
