Comparison of Two Methods of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Public ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00724750. Field values are reproduced from the official study page; the official ClinicalTrials.gov record remains the source of truth for eligibility, enrollment, and contact information.
Data is sourced from official ClinicalTrials.gov public API records. Always review the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for the latest information.
Official title
Prospective Randomized Control Trial Comparing Two Methods of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Gauze Suction Versus Vacuum Assisted Closure Device
Brief summary
Reproduced verbatim from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record. Not medical advice.
The current standard for negative pressure wound therapy is the Vacuum Assisted Closure Device (VAC), a commercial system that utilizes a computerized suction pump to apply negative pressure to an open-cell poly-urethane foam dressing sealed over a wound. The VAC system is effective but has some drawbacks: * The system is expensive. * There us conflicting data about the effectiveness of VAC therapy for infected wounds. * VAC therapy is difficult to use (and frequently fails) in wounds with excess fluid drainage, and in wounds near body orifices. Over the past 4 years, we have accumulated additional experience with negative pressure wound therapy using wall suction applied to sealed gauze dressings with about 30 patients. We call this method G-SUC and have used it when we have been unable to maintain a dressing seal with the VAC system (due to excess drainage or wound location), for management if infected wounds. We have found this method to be effective without any specific negative side effects. Our specific aims are: 1. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and standard VAC therapy. Outcomes measured for each method will include the proportional change in wound size over 1 - 2 weeks. 2. Compare the effectiveness of G-SUC and VAC system in controlling wound infections as measured by the number of patients who are able to clear infection by 4 days. 3. Compare the failure of each method of therapy by documenting the number of dressing that cannot be maintained because of fluid or suction. 4. Measure and compare the cost of wound treatment with the two methods including direct cost and time spent at the bed side performing the dressing change. Our hypotheses are: 1. G-SUC and VAC are equivalent for the treatment of uncomplicated wounds in the acute care, in-patient setting. 2. G-SUC is more effective than VAC for management of infected wounds. 3. G-SUC is more versatile than VAC, and functional G-SUC dressings can be maintained in situations where functional VAC dressings cannot. 4. Negative pressure therapy with G-SUC is less costly than VAC.
Study identification
- NCT ID
- NCT00724750
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Not applicable
- Enrollment
- 87 participants
Conditions and interventions
Eligibility (public fields only)
- Age range
- 18 Years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Healthy volunteers not accepted
This page does not interpret eligibility. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are on the official ClinicalTrials.gov record.
Study timeline
- Start date
- Jun 30, 2006
- Primary completion
- Apr 30, 2008
- Completion
- Apr 30, 2008
- Last update posted
- Oct 18, 2015
2006 – 2008
United States locations
- U.S. sites
- 1
- U.S. states
- 1
- U.S. cities
- 1
| Facility | City | State | ZIP | Site status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Chicago Medical Center | Chicago | Illinois | 60637 | — |
Site contact phone numbers, emails, and investigator names are intentionally not displayed here. Open the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for site contact information.
About this trial record page
- What this page shows
- Public field values for ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00724750, including study identification, conditions, interventions, eligibility (age, sex, healthy volunteer), timeline, and U.S. site list.
- What this page does not do
- No medical advice, eligibility judgments, treatment recommendations, study quality scoring, or AI-generated medical summaries. No site contact phone numbers, emails, or investigator names.
- Where the data comes from
- Sourced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API. The official record is the source of truth.
- Last refresh
- Last update posted Oct 18, 2015 · Synced Sep 5, 2026
Related: full search, browse by condition, browse by drug or therapy, browse by sponsor, browse by U.S. city.
Open the official record
The complete protocol, eligibility criteria, and contact information for NCT00724750 live on ClinicalTrials.gov.