Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Negative pressure wound therapy: past, present and future

Orgill DP., Bayer LR.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Int Wound J (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Int Wound J (2013)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
24251839
PMCID
PMC7950903
DOI
10.1111/iwj.12170
Citations
112

Abstract (original English)

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), which was introduced as a commercial product (V.A.C. Therapy, KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX) less than 20 years ago, has revolutionised the treatment of complex wounds. Indicated for wide variety of wound types, NPWT is an adjunctive therapy that can be used safely in a range of care settings. Current research indicates that there are four primary NPWT mechanisms of action: macrodeformation, microdeformation, fluid removal and environmental control of the wound. The interaction of the primary mechanisms results in secondary effects through cell signalling (e.g. granulation tissue formation, cell proliferation and modulation of inflammation). Better understanding of the mechanisms of action also provides insight into future directions for NPWT research that could create better solutions for patients with complex wounds.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Granulation TissueHumansWounds and InjuriesInflammationNeuropeptidesBandagesWound HealingCell ProliferationForecastingNegative-Pressure Wound Therapy

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research