The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF VACUUM-ASSISTED CLOSURE VERSUS STANDARD THERAPY OF CHRONIC NON-HEALING WOUNDS
Open accessAbstract
The application of controlled levels of negative pressure has been shown to accelerate debridement and promote healing in many different types of wounds.The optimum level of negative pressure appears to be around 125 mmHg below ambient and there is evidence that this is most effective if applied in a cyclical fashion of five minutes on and two minutes off.It is believed that the negative pressure assists with removal of interstitial fluid, decreasing localised oedema and increasing blood flow.This in turn de creases tissue bacterial levels.Additionally, mechanical deformation of cells is thought to result in protein and matrix molecule synthesis, which increases the rate of cell proliferation.Despite the significant costs involved, the technique is said to compare favourably in financial terms with conventional treatments in the management of difficult to heal wounds. METHODSVAC therapy using facilities available in government. RESULTSStudy group of 20 members with 98-100% graft uptake for most used VAC therapy of 1 to 2 settings. CONCLUSIONNegative-Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) is a therapeutic technique using a vacuum dressing to promote healing in acute or chronic wounds and enhance healing of second and third degree burns.The therapy involves the controlled application of subatmospheric pressure to the local wound environment using a sealed wound dressing connected to a vacuum pump.The use of this technique in wound management increased dramatically over the 1990s and 2000s and a large number of studies have been published examining NPWT.NPWT appears to be useful for diabetic wound and management of the open abdomen (Laparotomy), but further research is required for other wound types, always superior to normal saline dressing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Armstrong, D. G., & Lavery, L. A. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67695-7 · Cited by 963
A Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Negative-pressure Wound Dressings for Diabetic Foot Wounds
Eginton, M. T., Brown, K. R., Seabrook, G. R., Towne, J. B., & Cambria, R. A. (2003) · Annals of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1007/s10016-003-0065-3 · Cited by 321
The mechanisms of action of vacuum assisted closure: More to learn
Orgill, D. P., Manders, E. K., Sumpio, B. E., Lee, R. C., Attinger, C. E., Gurtner, G. C., & Ehrlich, H. P. (2009) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.002 · Cited by 290
Vig, S., Dowsett, C., Berg, L., Caravaggi, C., Rome, P., Birke-Sorensen, H., Bruhin, A., Chariker, M., Depoorter, M., Dunn, R., et al. (2011) · Journal of Tissue Viability · doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2011.07.002 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Raghupathy, R., Sabrena, S., Vaithiswaran, A., Franklin, A., & Kailasam, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences
- Published
- 2016-06-20
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 49
- Pages
- 3162-3167
- ISSN
- 2278-4748 (ISSN-L)
- 2278-4802
- OpenAlex
- W2621401622
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF VACUUM-ASSISTED CLOSURE VERSUS STANDARD THERAPY OF CHRONIC NON-HEALING WOUNDS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14260/jemds/2016/733
- The paper
- Raghupathy, R., Sabrena, S., Vaithiswaran, A., Franklin, A., & Kailasam, S. (2016). A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF VACUUM-ASSISTED CLOSURE VERSUS STANDARD THERAPY OF CHRONIC NON-HEALING WOUNDS. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2016/733
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.