Abstract
Pressure transduction to the wound bed in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is crucial in stimulating the biological effects ultimately resulting in wound healing. In clinical practice, either foam or gauze is used as wound filler. Furthermore, two different drainage techniques are frequently employed. One involves the connection of a non-perforated drainage tube to the top of the dressing, while the other involves the insertion of perforated drains into the dressing. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of these two different wound fillers and drainage systems on pressure transduction to the wound bed in a challenging wound (the sternotomy wound). Six pigs underwent median sternotomy. The wound was sealed for NPWT using different wound fillers (foam or gauze) and drainage techniques (see earlier). Pressures between 0 and -175 mmHg were applied and the pressure in the wound was measured using saline-filled catheters sutured to the bottom of the wound (over the anterior surface of the heart) and to the side of the wound (on the thoracic wall). The negative pressure on the wound bed increased linearly with the negative pressure delivered by the vacuum source. In a dry wound, the pressure transduction was similar when using the different wound fillers (foam and gauze) and drainage techniques. In a wet wound, pressure transduction was better when using a perforated drainage tube inserted into the wound filler than a non-perforated drainage tube connected to the top of the dressing (-116 ± 1 versus -73 ± 4 mmHg in the wound at a delivered pressure of -125 mmHg for foam, P < 0·01), regardless of the type of wound filler. Gauze and foam are equally effective at delivering negative pressure to the wound bed. Perforated drainage tubes inserted into the wound filler are more efficient than a non-perforated drainage tubes connected to the top of the dressing. The choice of drainage technique may be particularly important in wounds with a large volume of exudate.