This observational study evaluated the use of a novel, ultraportable, mechanically powered topical negative pressure device in promoting healing in chronic wounds, including venous and mixed etiology leg ulcers and neuropathic foot ulcers.
Materials and Methods:
Evaluable patients (n=37) received treatment with the SNaP® Wound Care System for up to 6 weeks. The primary objective was percentage change in wound size, with secondary objectives of clinical assessment of wound parameters, ease of use, and impact on quality of life.
Results:
A 42.64% mean percentage decrease in wound area was observed, with an overall decrease for each wound etiology subgroup. Increased granulation tissue, decreased exudate levels, and decreased wound pain were reported. Quality-of-life scores increased overall, and the device was easy to use, comfortable, portable, and inconspicuous.
Conclusion:
The SNaP Wound Care System has the potential to promote healing in chronic wounds of different etiologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). A World Union of Wound Healing Societies' Consensus Document: Vacuum Assisted Closure: Recommendations for use. Medical Education Partnership (MEP) Ltd, London, 2008.
2.
European Wound Management Association (EWMA). Position Document: Topical Negative Pressure in Wound Management. Medical Education Partnership (MEP) Ltd, London, 2007.
3.
MorykwasMJ, ArgentaLC, Shelton-BrownEI, et al.Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg, 1997; 38:553–562.
4.
TrengoveNJ, StaceyMC, MacauleyS, et al.Analysis of the acute and chronic wound environments: the role of proteases and their inhibitors. Wound Repair Regen, 1999; 7:442–452.
5.
GreeneAK, PuderM, RoyR, et al.Microdeformational wound therapy: effects on angiogenesis and matrix metalloproteinases in chronic wounds of 3 debilitated patients. Ann Plast Surg, 2006; 56:418–422.
6.
StechmillerJK, KilapadiDV, ChildressB, et al.Effect of vacuum-assisted closure therapy on the expression of cytokines and proteases in wound fluid of adults with pressure ulcers. Wound Repair Regen, 2006; 14:371–374.
7.
BradfordEH. The hyperaemia treatment of congested and inflamed tissues. N Engl J Med, 1906; 24:671–674.
8.
TimmersMS, Le CessieS, BanwellP, et al.The effects of varying degrees of pressure delivered by negative-pressure wound therapy on skin perfusion. Ann Plast Surg, 2005; 55:665–671; discussion 1097–1098.
9.
FabianTS, KaufmanHJ, LettED, et al.The evaluation of subatmospheric pressure and hyperbaric oxygen in ischemic full-thickness wound healing. Am Surg, 2000; 66:1136–1143.
10.
IlizarovGA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1989; 238:249.
11.
IlizarovGA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1989; 239:263.
12.
SwanM, BanwellPE. Topical Negative Pressure: Advanced Management of the Open Abdomen. Oxford, UK: Oxford Wound Healing Society, 2003.
13.
RaoM, BurkeD, FinanPJ, SagarPM. The use of vacuum-assisted closure of abdominal wounds: a word of caution. Colerectal Dis, 2007; 9:266–268.
Open Abdomen Advisory Panel; CampbellA, ChangM, FabianT, FranzM, KaplanM, MooreF, ReedRL, ScottB, SilvermanR. Management of the open abdomen: from initial operation to definitive closure. Am Surg, 2009; 75(11 Suppl):S1–S22.
16.
GrahamID, HarrisonMB, NelsonEA, LorimerK, FisherA. Prevalence of lower-limb ulceration: a systematic review of prevalence studies. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2003; 16:305–316.
17.
HardingKG, MorrisHL, PatelGK. Science, medicine and the future: healing chronic wounds. BMJ, 2002; 324:160–163.
18.
TennvallGR, ApelqvistJ. Health Economic consequences of diabetic foot lesions. Clin Infect Dis, 2004; 39(supp):132–139.
19.
CallumMJ, RuckleyCV, HarperDR, DaleJJ. Chronic ulceration of the leg: extent of the problem and provision of care. BMJ, 1985; 290:1855–1856.
20.
VanderweeK, ClarkM, DealeyC, GunningbergL, DefloorT. Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract, 2007; 13:227–235.
21.
FranksPJ, MoffattCJ, ConnollyM, BosanquetN, OldroydMI, GreenhalghRM, McCollumCN. Factors associated with healing leg ulceration with high compression. Age Ageing, 1995; 24:407–410.
FordCN, ReinhardER, YehD, et al.Interim analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus the Healthpoint system in the management of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg, 2002; 49:55–61.
24.
VuerstaekJD, VainasT, WuiteJ, NelemansP, NeumannMH, VeraartJC. State of art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomised controlled trial comparing vacuum assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg, 2006; 44:1029–1037.
25.
LermanB, OldenbrookL, EichstadtSL, RyuJ, FongKD, SchubartPJ. Evaluation of chronic wound treatment with the SNaP wound care system versus modern dressing protocols. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2010; 126:1253–1261.
26.
LandsmanA. Analysis of the SNaP Wound Care System, a negative pressure wound device for treatment of diabetic lower extremity wounds. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2010; 4:831–832.
27.
LermanB, OldenbrookL, RyuJ, FongKD, SchubartPJ. The SNaP Wound Care System: a case series using a novel ultraportable negative pressure wound therapy device for the treatment of diabetic lower extremity wounds. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2010; 4:825–830.
28.
FongKD, HuD, EichstadtS, GuptaDM, PintoM, GurtnerGC, LongakerMT, LorenzHP. The SNaP system: biomechanical and animal model testing of a novel ultraportable negative-pressure wound therapy system. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2010; 125:1362–1371.
29.
ArmstrongDG, MarstonWA, ReyzelmanDPM, KirsnerRS. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with an ultraportable mechanically powered device vs. traditional electrically powered device for the treatment of chronic lower extremity ulcers: A multicentre randomized-controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen, 2011; 19:173–180
30.
ArmstrongDG, MarstonWA, et al.Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20:332–341
31.
Valenzuela-SilvaCM, Tuero-IglesiasÁD, García-IglesiasE, González-DíazO, Del Río-MartínA, Yera AlosIB, Fernández-MontequínJI, López-SauraPA. Granulation response and partial wound closure predict healing in clinical trials on advanced diabetes foot ulcers treated with recombinant human epidermal growth factor. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:210–215.
32.
FongKDD, HuSL, EichstadtE, et al.Initial clinical experience using a novel ultraportable negative pressure wound therapy device. Wounds, 2010; 22:230–236.
33.
OzturkE, OzgucH, YilmazlarT. the use of vacuum assisted closure therapy in the management of Fournier's gangrene. Am J Surg, 2009; 197:660–665.
34.
FraccalvieriM, RukaE, BocchiottiMA, ZingarelliE, BrushiS. Patient's pain feedback using negative pressure wound therapy with foam and gauze. Int Wound J, 2011; 8:492–499.
35.
DorafsharAH, FranczykM, GottliebLJ, WroblewskiKE, LohmanRF. A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg, 2012; 69:79–84.
36.
World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Principles of Best Practice: Minimising Pain at Wound-Dressing Related Procedures. A consensus document. London: Medical Education Partnership, 2004.
37.
CameronJ. Dermatological changes associated with venous leg ulcers. Wound Essent, 2007; 2:60–66.
38.
DowsettC, DavisL, HendersonV, SearleR. The economic benefits of negative pressure wound therapy in community-based wound care in the NHS. Int Wound J, 2012; 9:544–552.
39.
BraakenburgA, ObdeijnMC, FeitzR, Van RooijIA, Van GriethuysenAJ, KlinkenbijlJH. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2006; 118:390–397.
40.
VerheggenFWSM, NiemanFH, ReerinkE, KokGJ. Patient satisfaction with clinical trial participation. Int J Qual Health Care, 1998; 10:319–330.
