VAC therapy
we are applying Vac theraphy for the most of the patient with sever wounds by our own material with the help of wall suction , and most of them are doing traditional dressing even now, shortly we are planning to use integrated VAC unit. can any one explain what way it will differ in the healing process and the roles and responsibility of nurses.
Views: 42
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pamela "Pam" Smith, RN,MSN,CRRN on -
May I ask what material are you using inside the wound? Is it a sponge material like KCI? Would the wall suction be set for 125mmHg continuous or intermittent? This is the first I've heard of using wall suction and I'm very interested in hearing more of your details please.
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia A Meyers RN BSN CWCN on
-
Not me, I have heard of using it--since not much different then what the blue sky use to be. That is the big problem, since you do not know what pressure you are using. but i have heard from several people this is working, would like to see studies of side by side comparision
-
Permalink Reply by Prasanna RN RM BSN on -
Yes it is very similiare like KCI sponge, pressure is also same ., but we can not assess the pressure from the wound site. pressure - it depends up on the surgeon. why they use because cost effective when compare to Integrated VAC unit.
thank you.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael S. Miller DO on
-
Ask and ye shall receive. There is actually a study done by Dr, Gottleib at the University of Chicago that was NIH sponsored not any company. Google the terms "G-Suck, Gottleib and University of Chicago " and you will see a study that compared KCI to wall suction and a gauze, silicon dressing. Guess what it showed??? The gauze technique was less painful, faster and easier to apply, faster and easier to remove, less costly and the big finish...Time to healing was identical. Have more questions?? Never heard of it? AT least one company was not happy with the results. Want more information on the differences? Take a look at my article "Negative Pressure Darwinism - Survival of the Fittest Paradigm" in the March issue of WOUNDS and read more about the past, current and future of NPWT.
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia A Meyers RN BSN CWCN on
-
Yes, I have heard of this study at University of Chicago, but have not seen it in print. Julia is a physical therapist, at the same homecare I work at and she is the one told me about it. I will look it up. The only thing is, this does not work with homecare. As the one that did use it, made the wound we had, worse. Also, it was hard to seal and keep that way.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael S. Miller DO on
-
Agreed, hard to bring the wall to the home. As far as alternatives of porous, non-adherent, wound contact layers, they all have been shown to transmit the Negative pressure to the wound surface per Noyle's Law of Ideal Gas which has never been refuted. There has been a search for a good film to seal the non-foam alternatives and that may have been the problem. When people stop drinking the Kool-aid and look at the pure science, Suction is suction and one particular wound contact medium seems to do very little in contrast to other wound contact media...regardless of the marketing and hype. If your wound got worse, it could have been that you used too high pressures (60-80mmHg for soft tissues, 80-100mHg for more dense tissues like fascia), or any of the other plethora of reasons why wounds get worse despite great therapy.
Wound Infections
Wound Courses
Why Wound Certification?
Wound Care Jobs
Check out our job board and view wound care jobs in your area:
Product Spotlight
© 2012 Created by WoundTalk.
