Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols

Date Submitted: Sep 27, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Sep 27, 2018 - Oct 5, 2018
Date Accepted: Oct 25, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Älgå A, Wong S, Haweizy R, Conneryd Lundgren K, von Schreeb J, Malmstedt J

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7(11):e12334

DOI: 10.2196/12334

PMID: 30478024

PMCID: 6288590

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Andreas ÄlgÃ¥; 
  • Sidney Wong; 
  • Rawand Haweizy; 
  • Kalle Conneryd Lundgren; 
  • Johan von Schreeb; 
  • Jonas Malmstedt

ABSTRACT

Background:

In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.

Methods:

This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.

Results:

The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.

Conclusions:

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02444598; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02444598 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72hjI2XNX) International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12334


 Citation

Please cite as:

Älgå A, Wong S, Haweizy R, Conneryd Lundgren K, von Schreeb J, Malmstedt J

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7(11):e12334

DOI: 10.2196/12334

PMID: 30478024

PMCID: 6288590

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.