The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Professor Malin Malmsjö, MD, PhD. Photo.

Malin Malmsjö

Professor

Professor Malin Malmsjö, MD, PhD. Photo.

Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: Treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer) - Steps towards an international consensus

Author

  • H. Birke-Sorensen
  • Malin Malmsjö
  • P. Rome
  • D. Hudson
  • E. Krug
  • L. Berg
  • A. Bruhin
  • C. Caravaggi
  • M. Chariker
  • M. Depoorter
  • C. Dowsett
  • R. Dunn
  • F. Duteille
  • F. Ferreira
  • J. M. Francos Martinez
  • G. Grudzien
  • S. Ichioka
  • Richard Ingemansson
  • S. Jeffery
  • C. Lee
  • S. Vig
  • N. Runkel
  • R. Martin
  • J. Smith
Show all

Summary, in English

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is becoming a commonplace treatment in many clinical settings. New devices and dressings are being introduced. Despite widespread adoption, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of NPWT use. To respond to these gaps, a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In a previous communication, we have reviewed the evidence base for the use of NPWT within trauma and reconstructive surgery. In this communication, we present results of the assessment of evidence relating to the different NPWT treatment variables: different wound fillers (principally foam and gauze); when to use a wound contact layer; different pressure settings; and the impact of NPWT on bacterial bioburden. Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence and drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) classification system. In general, there is relatively weak evidence on which to base recommendations for any one NPWT treatment variable over another. Overall, 14 recommendations were developed: five for the choice of wound filler and wound contact layer, four for choice of pressure setting and five for use of NPWT in infected wounds. With respect to bioburden, evidence suggests that reduction of bacteria in wounds is not a major mode of action of NPWT. (C) 2011 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Department/s

  • Ophthalmology, Lund
  • Thoracic Surgery

Publishing year

2011

Language

English

Pages

1-16

Publication/Series

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

Volume

64

Document type

Journal article review

Publisher

Elsevier

Topic

  • Surgery

Keywords

  • Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)
  • Recommendations
  • Systematic
  • review
  • Consensus
  • NPWT wound-filler materials
  • Negative pressure level

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1878-0539