Wound vac is a clinical procedure of treating wounds whereby clinicians take a wound through a process called Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). The gadget used to do the operation has a fabric which is used as a dressing material and is attached to the wound with the help of a tube. This method of therapy is normally done on chromic wounds which have resisted other treatment procedures or surgical wounds which have reopened after a surgery.
It is a sensitive surgical procedure which can only be done by a specialist but does not need to take place in a hospital. Treatment of the wound involves cleaning and then sterilizing the sponge used to fit the wound from inside. With the help of a clear film the sponge is then sealed in place which has the wound. The gadget is then turned on after the tube is connected to the wound VAC. The specialist carrying out the procedure selects an appropriate pressure to do the operation. The devise is usually turned off every time the wound is being inspected (Mustoe, 2009).
Recently however, a debate has emerged over the effectiveness and availability of evidence on the ability of the procedure to heal chronic wounds. A critical analysis of arguments in regard to wound vacs reveals that biological evidence behind it is stil vague. Clinicians have carried out the procedure for many years with an assumption that the procedure makes chronic wounds to heal faster by reducing infection risks and other related problems (Bauman, 2007).
Most of the questions raised seek to find out whether there is evidence that wound vacs leads to healing. It emerges that doctors have carried out the procedure as a tradition or because a relatively good number of patients have responded positively after undergoing the operation. They do this by gauging the situation of the patient, scientific relevance and experience (Sheffield & Fife, 2008).
Evidence on the efficacy of the procedure is limited and what is available in books and internet is usually not properly proven. It happens that it is very hard to find facts which are properly backed by evidence in the field of surgery. This difficulty is brought about by the fact that research in this field is usually very expensive to carry out. Elements of silver used in the procedure have been proved to kill bacteria which infect the wound in the process of healing. The problem however is that when it is used on uninfected wound, it could lead to poisoning of surrounding normal cells.
This is one of the risks associated with wounds vacs. As a result of lack of proved data on the healing efficacy of wound vacs, qualified doctors usually advise that the method should only be used in trial procedures. These doctors avoid the possibility of being biased as a result of positive responses from patients who have gone through the procedure because positive response is not evidence. They use it cautiously unless they are applying it to wounds resulting from burns (Rao & Lipsky, 2007).
As stated earlier, wound vac is a very expensive undertaking both in research and practice. This has made insurance companies to only pay for these procedures when they are carried out in the hospital. This leads to another problem when patients who have gone through the procedure refuse to go for home care. Nursing managers are then stranded with such like patients in hospitals without knowing what to do with them (Gerry & Kwei, 2007).
In conclusion, extensive research needs to be done to find out the relationship between wound vacs and chronic wounds. Since research and practice of surgery is expensive and going beyond the reach of many organizations, several companies could team up together to financially sustain research on wound vacs. Evidence from such undertaking would be beneficial to all stakeholders.
References
Bauman, N. (2007). How to Use Evidence Based Medicine in Wound Care. Veith Symposium 2007, 11(03), 1-2. Web.
Gerry, R. & Kwei, S. (2007). Silver-Impregnated Vacuum-Assisted Closure in the Treatment of Recalcitrant Venous Stasis Ulcers. Ann Plast Surg, 59 (1), 58–62.
Mustoe, T. (2009). Tissue Repair and Ulcer/Wound Healing: Molecular Mechanisms, Therapeutic Targets and Future Directions. Paris, France: Euro Conferences, 48(5), 24-37.
Rao, N. & Lipsky, A. (2007). Optimizing Antimicrobial Therapy in Diabetic Foot Infections. Evidence Drugs, 21(01), 67-69.
Sheffield, P. & Fife, C. (2008). Wound Care Practice. New York, NY: Best Publishing Company.