Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Cochrane Review; 7 studies (1381 participants).

The aim of this review was to find out whether negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (a sealed wound dressing connected to a vacuum pump that sucks up fluid from the wound) is effective for treating open traumatic wounds (injuries such as animal bites, bullet wounds or fractures that result in bone piercing the skin to form open wounds).

Key messages

It is uncertain whether NPWT is effective for treating traumatic wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is no clear difference in healing rates in open fracture wounds treated with NPWT compared with standard care. It is very uncertain whether people treated with NPWT experience fewer wound infections compared with those treated with standard care. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds.

It is very uncertain whether NPWT may reduce the likelihood of wound infection compared with standard care. There is no clear evidence that NPWT impacts on people's experience of pain, adverse events or their experience of receiving therapy.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ Introduction and aims\ Sprains, strains, and bruises are common injuries, and people with these injuries often require pain relief, given as a tablet or capsule that is swallowed (oral). Many types of oral painkillers are available to treat such injuries. We wanted to know whether there were any differences in people's pain, swelling, function, or unwanted side effects when sprains, strains, and bruises were treated with oral non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, e.g. ibuprofen) compared with paracetamol, opioids (e.g. codeine), complementary or alternative medicines, or combinations of these.\ This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015.\ What did we do?\ We searched medical databases up to January 2020 for studies that compared NSAIDs with other painkillers in people with sprains, strains, and bruises. Study participants could be any age. We assessed the included studies to judge the reliability (certainty) of the evidence. We categorised the evidence as being of high, moderate, low, or very low certainty. High certainty means we are confident in the evidence, moderate certainty means we are fairly confident, low or very low certainty means that we are unsure or very unsure of the reliability of the evidence.\ Results of our search and description of studies\ We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Seven studies included people with ankle sprain only. Three studies included children only. Most of the participants of the other studies were young adults, and there were slightly more men than women. Few participants were aged over 65 years. Eleven studies compared NSAIDs with paracetamol, six studies compared NSAIDs with opioids, and four studies compared NSAIDs with paracetamol combined with an opioid. Studies reported outcomes at times varying from one hour after taking the medication, up to 10 to 14 days.\ Main results\ There is no difference between NSAIDs and paracetamol in pain after one to two hours, or after two to three days (high‐certainty evidence), and there may be no difference after a week or more (low‐certainty evidence). There is low‐certainty evidence that NSAIDs may make little difference to swelling after a week or more. We are uncertain whether NSAIDs make a difference to return to function after a week or more (very low‐certainty evidence). There is low‐certainly evidence that NSAIDs may slightly increase unwanted side effects related to the gut.\ There is probably no difference between NSAIDs and opioids in pain at one hour (moderate‐certainly evidence), and there may be no difference four or seven days after taking medication (low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs make a difference to swelling after 10 days (very low‐certainty evidence). There is low‐certainty evidence that NSAIDs may increase return to function in 7 to 10 days. There is moderate‐certainty evidence that NSAIDs probably result in fewer unwanted side effects, such as nausea and dizziness, compared with opioids.\ The evidence suggests that there is little or no difference between NSAIDs and paracetamol combined with opioids in pain, swelling, return to function, or unwanted side effects. However, the evidence was very low certainty, so we are uncertain of these results.\ No studies reported the risk of re‐injury after treatment.\ We found no studies comparing NSAIDs with complementary or alternative medicines.\ Conclusions\ The body of evidence to date has found no difference between NSAIDs and other pain killers for pain relief for strains, sprains, and bruises in younger people. However, we need more, and better evidence on return to function and unwanted side effects in all age groups, particularly in older people.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/1b22ae79-f8d2-4864-a092-abfc66c02fca)

\ \ Do antibiotics prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery?\ What was the aim of this review?\ The aim of this review was to determine whether giving people antibiotics before or during an operation is effective for preventing surgical site infection (SSI) following breast cancer surgery. Researchers from Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies (randomised controlled trials) to answer this question and found 11 relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials are medical studies where people are chosen at random to receive different treatments. This type of trial provides the most reliable health evidence.\ Key messages\ There is moderate certainty evidence that antibiotics given before an operation probably reduce the risk of SSI in patients having surgery for breast cancer. We cannot be certain whether antibiotics given during an operation reduce the risk of developing an SSI, as the available evidence is of very low certainty.\ What was studied in this review?\ Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women and the leading cause of cancer death in women. Surgical removal of all or part of the breast is a common treatment for people diagnosed with breast cancer. However, an infection of the surgical wound is often a complication of the surgery, affecting up to 15% of patients. Having an SSI may require a longer stay in hospital or a repeat operation. Taking antibiotics prior to the operation or during the operation aims to reduce the risk of developing an infection in the surgical wound.\ What are the main results of the review?\ In August 2018 we searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated whether antibiotics given to people before or during surgery for breast cancer prevent an infection of the surgical site (SSI). This is an update of an existing review and no new relevant studies were found in the most recent search. We analysed the results of 11 studies with 2867 participants. Ten studies looked at giving antibiotics to patients prior to the surgery compared with not giving antibiotics or giving placebo. One study compared giving antibiotics perioperatively (between induction of anaesthetic and the patient leaving the recovery room) to not giving antibiotics. The results showed us that giving antibiotics before surgery probably reduced the risk of developing surgical site infection in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery with moderate certainty. No conclusions can be made from the results of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotics to no antibiotics as the evidence is of very low certainty. It is very uncertain whether there is an effect on incidence of adverse events. Furthermore, the effects on time to onset of infection, readmission to hospital and cost of care remain unclear. The review is not able to establish which antibiotic is most appropriate.\ How up to date is this review?\ We searched for studies that had been published up to August 2018.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/284c06c5-8441-4d3b-ac2a-d68120c2576b)

\ \ Primary closure (immediate stitches) versus delayed closure (delayed stitches) or no closure (no stitches) for traumatic wounds due to mammalian bite\ What is the aim of this review?\ The aim of this review was to find out whether animal bite wounds heal better when they are closed with stitches straight away (primary closure), or if the wounds are left open to heal for a short time before closure (delayed closure) or not stitched at all (no closure). We wanted to find out which wounds healed fastest, and if the method of closure affected the likelihood of wound infection, the appearance of the scar, the length of time patients were in hospital, and more serious side effects such as death. To answer this question, we collected and analysed all relevant studies (randomised controlled trials). Randomised controlled trials are medical studies where people are chosen at random to receive different treatments. This type of trial provides the most reliable health evidence. We found four relevant studies.\ Key messages\ All the studies we found concerned dog bites. In terms of wound infection, we cannot be certain whether it is better to close dog bite wounds straight away, or wait a while before stitching, or leave them with no stitches. There was little difference in the appearance of the bite scar. Most of the evidence we found was of low certainty due to the size of the studies and the methods used.\ What was studied in the review?\ Mammalian bite wounds from animals such as dogs, cats and monkeys are a common problem throughout the world. In developed countries, many bite wounds are caused by domestic pets. In lower‐income countries bites can also be caused by wild animals. Dogs are generally responsible for the majority of bites. Bite wounds are at high risk of infection as microbes are transmitted into the wound from the animal's mouth. In lower‐income countries these wound infections can lead to serious complications and in some cases death.\ The first priorities when treating an animal bite are to stop the flow of blood from the wound, provide pain relief, and prevent infection. This can include appropriate vaccination against tetanus and rabies. It is often recommended that bite wounds are not stitched straight away if infection is suspected, as closing an infected wound could delay healing and be potentially fatal.\ What are the main results of the review?\ In July 2019 we searched for randomised controlled trials comparing primary closure versus delayed or no closure for mammalian bite wounds. We found four relevant studies on dog bites. They were carried out in the UK, Greece and China. No other mammalian bite studies were identified. Three of the studies we included compared primary closure with sutures (immediate stitches) with no closure for dog bite wounds. One study compared primary closure with delayed closure for dog bites. The people in the studies were followed, where stated, from 14 days to three months. Overall, participants from both sexes and all age groups were represented.\ We are uncertain whether primary closure of dog bite wounds increases the proportion of wounds which are infection‐free compared with no closure (very low‐certainty evidence from two studies including a total of 782 people) and compared with delayed closure (very low‐certainty evidence from one study with a total of 120 people). There is little difference in the appearance of dog bite wounds when primary closure is compared with no closure (moderate‐certainty evidence from one study with a total of 182 participants). None of the included studies reported proportion of wounds healed, the time to complete wound healing, length of hospital stay or adverse events. The number of people in the included studies was small, and the people who assessed the outcomes were aware of which treatment had been given. Both of these are reasons why the results are uncertain.\ How up to date is this review?\ We searched for studies that had been published up to July 2019.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/703fe0fe-e811-427f-8212-0a2f8f862463)

\ \ Over 75% of people with cancer experience pain. Around 30% to 50% of these people have moderate to severe pain, which can have a negative impact on daily life. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Hydromorphone may help relieve these symptoms. Cancer‐related pain is usually treated with medicines such as morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl or hydromorphone. This review looked at the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other medicines.\ We found four studies that compared hydromorphone with oxycodone, three studies that compared hydromorphone with morphine and one study that compared hydromorphone with fentanyl.\ This review includes eight studies (four new studies included in this updated version) with 1283 participants comparing hydromorphone with oxycodone, morphine or fentanyl in adults (aged 18 years and above) with moderate to severe cancer pain. None of the studies compared hydromorphone and placebo. None of the studies included children.\ We found no differences in pain intensity scores between the different treatment groups and on average patients reported low levels of pain after opioid administration. Hydromorphone seemed to work as well as morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. There were some side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear difference between people taking hydromorphone and people taking morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl.\ We rated the certainty of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate or high. Very low‐certainty evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High‐certainty evidence means that we are very confident in the results. No results were rated as high certainty; we only identified very low‐certainty evidence for pain intensity, pain relief and side effects. These outcomes were rated as very low certainty because there were either few trials included with few participants, or due to other sources of bias, such as potential competing interests with the pharmaceutical industry.\ The studies did not provide enough high‐certainty evidence to draw firm conclusions; the evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other medicines is very uncertain.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/71e1e061-8657-40ed-8581-8ed25c273e87)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)