Tissue Ingrowth Into Foam but Not Into Gauze During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

  • Wed, 11/11/09 - 1:23pm
  • 0 Comments
  • 7580 reads
Author(s): 
Ola Borgquist, MD; Lotta Gustafsson, MSc, PhD; Richard Ingemansson, MD, PhD; Malin Malmsjö, MD, PhD

Abstract: Background. Foam and gauze are two types of wound fillers used for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Differences in the wound healing effects of foam and gauze have been observed clinically. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of NPWT on the wound bed using foam and gauze. Methods. A porcine peripheral wound model was treated with NPWT at 0, -75 mmHg, or -125 mmHg for 72 hours. The effects of foam and gauze on the wound bed were compared, and the force required to remove the dressings was measured. Sections of biopsies from the wound bed with an overlying dressing were stained with hematoxylin-eosin and Giemsa and were examined histologically. Results. The force ratio needed to remove the wound filler from the wound bed after treatment with negative pressure was greater for foam than for gauze. NPWT caused the wound bed tissue to grow into the foam, while there was no such ingrowth into gauze. Furthermore, beneath the foam there was more leukocyte infiltration, tissue disorganization, disruption of contact among cells, and differences in size among cells. The results were similar regardless of the level of negative pressure. Conclusion. More force was required to remove foam compared to gauze following NPWT, which may have been due to greater ingrowth into foam. These findings may explain the patient discomfort and wound bed disruption upon removal of foam. The observed differences in wound bed tissue morphology under foam and gauze are in accordance with the clinically observed differences in quality of granulation tissue formation.




Address correspondence to:
Malin Malmsjö, MD, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology
Lund University
Lund, Sweden
Phone: 004 673 356 5650
Email: malin.malmsjo@med.lu.se





     The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has evolved over the last decade due to its remarkable effects on the healing of chronic and difficult wounds.1,2 Although the precise mechanism by which NPWT brings about wound healing is not known, it has been shown that it promotes a moist wound healing environment,3 reduces bacterial colony counts,4 increases granulation tissue formation,4 removes edema,5 stimulates cell-mediated immune response,6 induces mechanical deformation of the wound edge tissue,1,4,7 decreases the permeability of blood vessels,8 and stimulates angiogenesis and blood flow to the wound margins.9,10

     NPWT consists of a wound filler material covered with an adherent airtight drape that is connected to a negative pressure pump. The wound filler material is either foam or gauze. Paglinawan et al11 showed that both gauze and foam result in increased granulation tissue formation, yet it is believed that there are differences in the granulation tissue formed by foam and gauze. In clinical practice it has been observed that the granulation tissue formed after NPWT using foam is thick but fragile, whereas the granulation tissue is thinner and denser following NPWT using gauze. Furthermore, foam tends to adhere to the wound. Upon removal, the patient may experience pain, the tissue in the wound bed may be disrupted, and pieces of the foam may remain in the wound. Morykwas12 showed that granulation tissue grows into the wound filler during NPWT using foam and that this effect may be responsible for the clinically observed problems. No study has yet been performed to examine the effects of gauze on tissue ingrowth.

References: 

1. Morykwas MJ, Simpson J, Punger K, Argenta A, Kremers L, Argenta J. Vacuum-assisted closure: state of basic research and physiologic foundation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7 Suppl):121S-126S.
2. Banwell PE, Téot L. Topical negative pressure (TNP): the evolution of a novel wound therapy. J Wound Care. 2003;12(1):22-28.
3. Banwell PE. Topical negative pressure therapy in wound care. J Wound Care. 1999;8(2):79-84.
4. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38(6):553-562.
5. Lu X, Chen SZ, Li XY, et al. The experimental study of the effects of vacuum-assisted closure on edema and vessel permeability of the wound. Chin J Clin Rehabil. 2003;7:1244-1245.
6. Gouttefangeas C, Eberle M, Ruck P, et al. Functional T lymphocytes infiltrate implanted polyvinyl alcohol foams during surgical wound closure therapy. Clin Exp Immunol. 2001;124(3):398-405.
7. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38(6):563-576.
8. Chen SZ, Li J, Li XY, Xu LS. Effects of vacuum-assisted closure on wound microcirculation: an experimental study. Asian J Surg. 2005;28(3):211-217.
9. Evans D, Land L. Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds: a systematic review. Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54(3):238-242.
10. Greene AK, Puder M, Roy R, et al. Microdeformational wound therapy: effects on angiogenesis and matrix metalloproteinases in chronic wounds of 3 debilitated patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56(4):418-422.
11. Paglinawan R, Colic M, Simon M. A comparative study of the influence of different pressure levels combined with various wound dressings on negative pressure wound therapy driven wound healing. Presented at: European Tissue Repair Society Meeting; September 2008; Malta.
12. Morykwas M. Subatmospheric pressure therapy: research evidence. First International Topical Negative Pressure Therapy ETRS Focus Group Meeting; London: ETRS, 2003:39-44.
13. Kirker KR, Fisher ST, James GA, McGhee D, Shah CB. Efficacy of polyhexamethylene biguanide-containing antimicrobial foam dressing against MRSA relative to standard foam dressing. WOUNDS. 2009;21(9):229–233.
14. Apostoli A, Caula C. Pain and basic functional activities in a group of patients with cutaneous wounds under V.A.C therapy in hospital setting. Prof Inferm. 2008;61(3):158-164.
15. Campbell PE, Smith GS, Smith JM. Retrospective clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int Wound J. 2008;5(2):280-286.
16. Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, Eichbaum Q, Ingber D, Orgill DP. Vacuum-assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(5):1086-1096.
17. Luttikhuizen DT, Harmsen MC, Van Luyn MJ. Cellular and molecular dynamics in the foreign body reaction. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(7):1955-1970.
18. Borgquist O, Ingemansson R, Malmsjö M. Wound edge microvascular blood flow during negative pressure wound therapy: examining the effects of pressures from -10 to -175 mmHg. Plast Reconstr Surg. In press.
















image description image description