1. Demaria M, Stanley BJ, Hauptman JG, et al. Effects of negative pressure wound therapy on healing of open wounds in dogs. Vet Surg 2011; 40: 658–669.
2. Krug E, Berg L, Lee C, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury 2011; 42(suppl 1): S1–S12.
3. Mouës CM, Heule F, Hovius SER. A review of topical negative pressure therapy in wound healing: sufficient evidence? Am J Surg 2011; 201: 544–556.
4. Vig S, Dowsett C, Berg L, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in chronic wounds: steps towards an international consensus. J Tissue Viability 2011; 20 (suppl 1): S1–S18.
5. Birke-Sorenson H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer)—steps towards an international consensus. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64(suppl 1): S1–S16.
6. Orsini JA, Elce Y, Kraus B. Management of severely infected wounds in the equine patient. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2004; 3: 225–236.
7. Gemeinhardt KD, Molnar JA. Vacuum-assisted closure for management of a traumatic neck wound in a horse. Equine Vet Educ 2005; 17: 27–33.
8. Rijkenhuizen ABM, van den Boom R, Landman M, et al. Can vacuum assisted wound management enhance graft acceptance? Pferdeheilkunde 2005; 5: 413–418.
9. Quinn G. Management of large wounds in horses. In Pract 2010; 32: 370–381.
10. Jordana M, Pint E, Martens A. The use of vacuum-assisted wound closure to enhance skin graft acceptance in a horse. Vlaams Diergen Tijds 2011; 80: 343–350.
11. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38: 553–562.
12. Mouës CM, Vos MC, van den Bemd GJ, et al. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair Regen 2004; 12: 11–17.
13. Weed T, Ratliff C, Drake DB. Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy: does the wound VAC enhance bacterial clearance? Ann Plast Surg 2004; 52: 276–279.
14. Braakenburg A, Obdeijn MC, Feitz R, et al. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 390–397.
15. Yusuf E, Jordan X, Clauss M, et al. High bacterial load in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) foams used in the treatment of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2013; 21: 677–681.
16. Patmo ASP, Krijnen P, Tuinebreijer WE, et al. The effect of vacuum-assisted closure on the bacterial load and type of bacteria: a systematic review. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2014; 3: 383–389.
17. Assadian O, Assadian A, Stadler M, et al. Bacterial growth kinetic without the influence of the immune system using vacuum-assisted closure dressing with and without negative pressure in an in vitro wound model. Int Wound J 2010; 7: 283–289.
18. Antweiler RC, Taylor HE. Evaluation of statistical treatments of left-censored environmental data using coincident uncensored data sets: I. Summary statistics. Environ Sci Technol 2008; 42: 3732–3738.
19. Payne JL, Ambrosio AM. Evaluation of an antimicrobial silver foam dressing for use with V.A.C. therapy: morphological, mechanical, and antimicrobial properties. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009; 89: 217–222.
20. Silver S. Bacterial silver resistance: molecular biology and uses and misuses of silver compounds. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003; 27: 341–353.
21. Woods EJ, Cochrane CA, Percival SL. Prevalence of silver resistance genes in bacteria isolated from human and horse wounds. Vet Microbiol 2009; 138: 325–329.
22. Thavarajah R, Mudimbaimannar VK, Elizabeth J, et al. Chemical and physical basics of routine formaldehyde fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2012; 16: 400–405.
23. Steingrimsson S, Gottfredsson M, Gudmundsdottir I, et al. Negative-pressure wound therapy for deep sternal wound infections reduces the rate of surgical interventions for early reinfections. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012; 15: 406–410.
Advertisement
OBJECTIVE To compare antibacterial effects among 3 types of foam used with negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in an ex vivo equine perfused wound model.
SAMPLES Abdominal musculocutaneous flaps from 6 equine cadavers.
PROCEDURES Each musculocutaneous flap was continuously perfused with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution. Four 5-cm circular wounds were created in each flap and contaminated with 106 CFUs of both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). After a 1-hour incubation period, 1 of 4 treatments (NPWT with silver-impregnated polyurethane foam [NPWT-AgPU], polyurethane foam [NPWT-PU], or polyvinyl alcohol foam [NPWT-PVA] or a nonadherent dressing containing polyhexamethylene biguanide without NPWT [control]) was randomly applied to each wound. An 8-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from each wound immediately before and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours after treatment application to determine the bacterial load for both P aeruginosa and MRSA.
RESULTS The bacterial load of P aeruginosa for the NPWT-PVA treatment was significantly lower than that for the other 3 treatments at each sampling time after application, whereas the bacterial load for the NPWT-AgPU treatment was significantly lower than that for the NPWT-PU and control treatments at 12 hours after application. The bacterial load of MRSA for the NPWT-PVA treatment was significantly lower than that for the other 3 treatments at each sampling time after application.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that wounds treated with NPWT-PVA had the greatest decrease in bacterial load; however, the effect of that treatment on wound healing needs to be assessed in vivo.