Study Comparing Platform Wound Dressing, a Negative-Pressure Device without a Filler, with Three Conventional Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Treatment of Excisional and Incisional Wounds

Abstract

Background: All common negative-pressure wound therapy systems include a material, usually foam or gauze, at the wound/device interface. In this preclinical study, the authors have compared the effects on different wound healing parameters in the three most common negative-pressure wound therapy systems (i.e., V.A.C.VIA, PREVENA, and PICO) with a new device without foam or gauze (i.e., Platform Wound Dressing). A strong effort was made to avoid bias. The study was conducted under good laboratory practice conditions, with the presence of an independent observer. Methods: In pigs, three types of wounds were studied: full-thickness excisions, open incisions, and sutured closed incisions. Several macroscopic and microscopic parameters were studied. The pigs were euthanized on day 9 and all wounds were processed for histology and excisions for immunohistochemistry. Results: In general, the devices produced similar results, with only a few significant differences. In the excisions, the Platform Wound Dressing reduced wound area more than the V.A.C.VIA and the PICO. In the excisional wounds, reepithelialization was the same. In open incisions, PREVENA was better than the Platform Wound Dressing. Histologic examination showed that, in open incisions, there was less inflammation in the PREVENA-treated in comparison with the Platform Wound Dressing– and the PICO-treated wounds. Immunohistochemical analyses showed that the Platform Wound Dressing–treated excisions had significantly more blood vessels (von Willebrand factor) than the V.A.C.VIA-treated ones and that the PICO caused less T-cell activation (CD3) than the other two. Conclusion: The devices—with foam, with gauze, or without either and just an embossed membrane—performed equally in general.