%0 Journal Article
%T Cost Effectiveness of Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Its Modifications: A Review
%A Akhlak Hussain
%A Kuldip Singh
%A Mohinder Singh
%J ISRN Plastic Surgery
%D 2013
%R 10.5402/2013/595789
%X Negative topical pressure, the general category to which the trademarked VAC therapy belongs, is not a new concept in wound therapy. It is also called subatmospheric pressure therapy, vacuum sealing, vacuum-assisted closure therapy, vacuum pack therapy, and sealing aspirative therapy. The VAC therapy system is trademarked by Kinetic Concepts, Inc., or KCI. It was first reported in 1997. The aim of the procedure is to use negative pressure to create suction, which drains the wound of exudate (i.e., fluid, cells, and cellular waste that has escaped from blood vessels and seeped into tissue) and influences the shape and growth of the surface tissues in a way that helps healing. Negative-pressure therapy for the closure of wounds accelerates secondary wound healing. High cost is still a hindrance in its use in developing nations. Many modifications were tried, but their efficacy is yet to be proved. In reality, this method is quite cost effective. It is only the lack of understanding and adequate setup which makes this method hard to use. The main objective of this paper is to focus on the cost effectiveness of VAC and its modifications. We want to emphasize the importance of homemade NPT and the use of simple suction devices. 1. Introduction Chronic wound management represents a considerable burden on health services and requires considerable manpower, frequent specialist consultation, and adjunct therapies. The negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an important adjunct, which offers an important option for the advanced management of many wound types [1¨C3]. Currently NPWT has become an established method of wound management. Most of reports used the foam-based NPWT system using commercially available devices (e.g., KCIĄ¯s VAC). These are affordable and easily available in developed nations. But in developing countries, where the proportion of poor patients is very high, it is still beyond the reach of the needy patients. Some tried to reduce cost using other cheaper suction devices. Taking inspiration from such efforts, we are also trying one of the cheaper options for the betterment of patients and our observations were satisfactory. Thus, the importance of such methods is highlighted to enhance more research in this field so that the prolonged misery of chronic as well as acute wounds can be shortened in minimal cost. 2. Evidence behind Cost Effectiveness NPWT benefits include rapid wound granulation, epithelialisation and contraction [4], reduction in frequency of dressing changes [5], reduced infection risk [6], reduced treatment costs [7], control
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn.plastic.surgery/2013/595789/