OBJECTIVETo compare the differences of the clinical effects, side effects and treatment-related cost between two kinds of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT).

METHODSForty-four inpatients with acute, subacute, and chronic wounds were divided into simplified NPWT group (A group) and conventional NPWT group (B group) according to the random number table. Wounds of patients in A group were treated with gauze + continuous suction with hospital central negative pressure (-10.64 kPa) for 24 hs; wounds of patients in B group were treated with sponge + interrupted suction with a purpose-designed suction appliance (-16.63 kPa) for 24 hs. Gross wound condition, treatment time, survival rates of skin graft and flap, changes of bacterial species on wound, treatment cost, and ratio of side effects between two groups were compared.

RESULTSThere was no significant difference between A and B groups in respect of gross wound condition, treatment time [A group (29 +/- 12) d, B group (26 +/- 13) d, P > 0.05], changes of bacterial species, survival rates of skin graft [A group (98 +/- 4)%, B group (98 +/- 4)%, P > 0.05] and flap (A group 98%, B group 100%, P > 0.05). Treatment cost of A group yen(374 +/- 134) was obviously lower than that of B group yen(9825 +/- 4956) (P < 0. 01), while more side effects were observed in A group (33.3%) than that in B group (5.0%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONSBoth simplified NPWT and NPWT with purpose-designed appliance can effectively improve wound healing. The simplified method may cause many side effects and has a potential risk of inciting nosocomial infection, but it can be conveniently employed with a low cost. In contrast, the cost of using purpose-designed appliance should be cut down to meet the aim of generalization.