English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to be effective in the management of chronic and surgical wounds. The two most widely used modalities of NPWT are vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy (KCI, Inc., San Antonio, Texas) and the RENASYS NPWT system (Smith &amp; Nephew, Hull, United Kingdom). This evaluation compares the performance of the two systems in the management of wounds of mixed etiology. Approach: The evaluation is based on retrospective evaluation of more than 1,000 patients treated with NPWT in a community setting in Canada. Results: Patients were well matched according to their baseline characteristics, including age, sex, and wound characteristics. No difference was seen between the two NPWT systems in terms of the percentage of patients reaching their predetermined treatment goal (90.0% and 93.6%, respectively). The time taken to achieve the treatment goal (median 8 weeks in both groups), percentage reduction in wound area (64.2% and 65.3%, respectively), and weekly rate of reduction in wound area (9.7% and 9.4%, respectively; p  = 0.156). Innovation: This evaluation is believed to comprise the largest cohort of patients treated with NPWT published to date and is one of the few studies that have attempted to provide a direct comparison of the performance of alternative NPWT systems. Conclusion: Findings suggest that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the efficacy and performance of the two most widely used NPWT devices, based on consideration of a number of wound outcomes.

A Retrospective Comparison of the Performance of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Management of Wounds of Mixed Etiology