首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Eplasty >Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Automated Volumetric Instillation for the Treatment of Extremity and Trunk Wounds: Clinical Outcomes and Potential Cost-Effectiveness
【2h】

Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Automated Volumetric Instillation for the Treatment of Extremity and Trunk Wounds: Clinical Outcomes and Potential Cost-Effectiveness

机译:负压伤口疗法与自动容积滴注法在肢体和躯干伤口治疗中的应用:临床结果和潜在的成本效益

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objective: A growing body of literature supports use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) with positive clinical outcomes and potential cost savings. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare clinical outcomes of wounds treated with NPWTi-d versus NPWT and to estimate cost-differences between treatments based on clinical outcomes. >Methods: Data were extracted from records of patients with extremity or trunk wounds treated with NPWT (n = 34) or NPWTi-d using saline or polyhexanide (n = 48). On the basis of outcomes data, a hypothetical economic model using cost assumptions was created to calculate cost savings for NPWTi-d (related to) number of debridements and length of therapy. Operating room debridement cost was $3393 according to Granick et al. Daily therapy cost for each modality was $194.80 (NPWTi-d) and $106.08 (NPWT) based on internal company information. >Results: Results showed significant differences (P < 0.0001) between NPWTi-d and NPWT patients, respectively, for the following: mean operating room debridements (2.0 vs 4.4), mean hospital stay (8.1 vs 27.4 days), mean length of therapy (4.1 vs 20.9 days), and mean time to wound closure (4.1 vs 20.9 days). Hypothetical economic model showed potential average reduction of $8143 for operating room debridements between NPWTi-d ($6786) and NPWT ($14,929) patients. There was a $1418 difference in average therapy costs between groups ($799/NPWTi-d vs $2217/NPWT). >Conclusions: In this study, NPWTi-d appeared to assist in wound cleansing and exudate removal, which may have allowed for earlier wound closure compared to NPWT. Hypothetical economic model findings illustrate potential cost-effectiveness of NPWTi-d compared to NPWT.
机译:>目的:越来越多的文献支持负压伤口疗法(NPWT)的滴注和保压时间(NPWTi-d)的使用,并具有积极的临床效果并可能节省成本。进行了回顾性分析,以比较NPWTi-d与NPWT治疗的伤口的临床结局,并根据临床结局估算治疗之间的成本差异。 >方法:数据来自使用NPWT(n = 34)或NPWTi-d治疗的四肢或躯干伤口患者的生理盐水或聚己二烯(n = 48)的记录。基于结果数据,使用成本假设创建了一个假设的经济模型,以计算NPWTi-d(与清创次数和治疗时间有关)的成本节省。根据Granick等人的报告,手术室清创费用为$ 3393。根据公司内部信息,每种治疗方式的每日治疗费用分别为$ 194.80(NPWTi-d)和$ 106.08(NPWT)。 >结果:结果显示,NPWTi-d和NPWT患者分别具有以下显着差异(P <0.0001):平均手术室清创(2.0 vs 4.4),平均住院时间(8.1 vs 27.4天) ),平均治疗时间(4.1 vs 20.9天)和平均伤口闭合时间(4.1 vs 20.9天)。假设经济模型显示,NPWTi-d(6786美元)和NPWT(14,929美元)患者之间的手术室清创术平均潜在减少了8143美元。两组之间的平均治疗费用相差1418美元(799美元/ NPWTi-d与2217美元/ NPWT)。 >结论:在这项研究中,NPWTi-d似乎有助于伤口清洁和渗出液清除,与NPWT相比,这可能使伤口更早闭合。假设的经济模型发现表明,与NPWT相比,NPWTi-d具有潜在的成本效益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号