Introduction
Nurses widely use negative-pressure wound therapy to improve the healing process, and it is a common technique for medical workers. The article is focused on the influence of negative-pressure wound therapy on tissue perfusion, and it was revealed that an increase in tissue pressure is associated with negative-pressure wound therapy. The research examined that this technique can harm patients, so this therapy should be carefully implemented due to its potential risks. The main aim of the research was to study perfusion in negative-pressure wound therapy, which shows its contrasts with using laser Doppler, which rapidly increases perfusion and uses various modalities. This topic and article are essential for further nursing education and understanding the role and impact of negative-pressure wound therapy on patients and how to use it properly.
Critical Article Review
The article researches the essential topic for nurses and uses different approaches to study to provide high objectivity of the findings. Firstly, the authors adequately chose the sample size for both researched groups. Ten healthy volunteers were selected to examine the impact of the therapy on their hands and legs (Kairinos et al., 2018). To provide a more accurate understanding, two types of negative-pressure wound therapy were chosen: circumferential and non-circumferential, which allows us to compare and contrast the results.
The findings demonstrated a reduction in perfusion with increasing suction pressure in both types of negative-pressure wound therapy. The author considered transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen measurements and radioisotope perfusion, which provides different views on the issue and improves the article’s objectivity (Kairinos et al., 2018). Therefore, the article provides a cohesive overview of the issue, uses an adequate sample size to research the impact of negative-pressure wound therapy, and researches the topic from various sides, making the article objective.
The Evaluation of the Supporting Evidence
The article demonstrates persuasive evidence, including demographics, perfusion reduction, and a comparison of different methods of negative-pressure wound therapy. Firstly, two group types were chosen, which consisted of both men and women, which allows research on the impact of the therapy on men and women (Kairinos et al., 2018). Secondly, both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in perfusion, and statistical significance was observed. For example, the first group has a reduction between 17% and 8.9%, and the second – is between 40% and 11,5% (Kairinos et al., 2018).
Thirdly, the article also included findings from other research and showed the difference between this one and the others that used laser Doppler measurements (Kairinos et al., 2018). Lastly, the comparison between suction pressures was conducted, and it was examined that the higher the pressure, the more significant the reduction in perfusion was. Hence, the evidence used in the article consists of different parts, which helps to analyze the topic better.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
The article uses objective measurements and an appropriate sample size, but the clinical scenario needs to be fully represented, and the potential long-term effects are not included. On the one hand, the article’s findings highlight the impact of negative-pressure wound therapy on tissue perfusion. Moreover, it is recommended to be careful when implementing this therapy due to its potential risks (Kairinos et al., 2018). The adequate sample size makes the research results trustworthy and reliable, as the topic is examined from various sides.
On the other hand, the study was conducted on healthy volunteers, and patients with compromised vascularity were omitted. In addition, the potential long-term consequences should be discussed. For example, one study reported that wound drainage among patients was less reported during long-term periods rather than short-term (Keeney et al., 2019). In the case of reduced perfusion with negative-pressure wound therapy, it is essential to thoroughly examine the long-term outcomes to understand the issue and its impact. Thus, the articles seem objective, but further improvements, including patients with compromised vascularity and the long-term effects of the therapy, should also be examined and discussed.
The Need for Further Research
There are a few areas that need to be improved in the article to implement its findings further. The article can discuss its limitations to demonstrate the ideas for further research. The authors recommend being careful while using negative-pressure wound therapy, so the potential alternatives for the healing methods can also be suggested. The sample size is adequate and appropriate for this study, but further research can include a broader range of patients. Thus, the article has a few areas that should be improved and can be used for further research to provide a more accurate and deep understanding of the issue.
Nevertheless, the article successfully relays information, and the given data and supporting evidence are well-structured, so it is recommended to be read by healthcare professionals and nurses to enhance their understanding of the topic. The research provides transparent information about the role of negative-pressure wound therapy and its influence on tissue perfusion. After reading this article, nurses can learn about implementing negative-pressure wound therapy and expand their knowledge. Lastly, including different groups, methods, and views makes this article a reliable source of information for nurses to use during their practice. Hence, the article is recommended, as it provides valuable insight into the topic and is structured.
Conclusion
After analyzing this article, I enhanced my knowledge about negative-pressure wound therapy, its impact on patients, and potential risks. It is essential to examine the impact of the therapy on the patient before implementing it. In addition, I discovered that this therapy could decrease perfusion significantly when suction pressure is increased.
It is essential to implement this method but also consider its impact to avoid risks, and using alternative strategies is the most appropriate option. I can use this knowledge to improve my awareness of the therapy’s probable outcomes and carefully monitor tissue perfusion during negative-pressure wound therapy. Lastly, this information improves my healing skills and can enhance my nursing practice and the connection between nurse and patient.
References
Kairinos, N., Voogd, A. M., Botha, P. H., Kotze, T., Kahn, D., Hudson, D. A., & Solomons, M. (2018). Negative-pressure wound therapy II: negative-pressure wound therapy and increased perfusion. Just an illusion? Wound Healing Southern Africa. 11(1), 24-32.
Keeney, J. A., Cook, J. L., Clawson, S. W., Aggarwal, A., & Stannard, J. P. (2019). Incisional negative pressure wound therapy devices improve short-term wound complications, but not long-term infection rate following hip and knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 34(4), 723-728. Web.