Comparison of lower extremity fasciotomy wound closure techniques in children: vacuum-assisted closure device versus temporary synthetic skin replacement.
Child
Compartment syndrome
Fasciotomy
Lower extremity
V.A.C. device
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
08
04
2018
accepted:
11
07
2018
pubmed:
18
7
2018
medline:
14
4
2020
entrez:
18
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
No clear consensus on the optimal treatment of fasciotomy wounds due to acute compartment syndrome of the lower leg in children exists. We therefore compared two commonly used methods to close fasciotomy wounds, Epigard, a temporary synthetic skin replacement (SSR) and the vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) device, in respect of treatment duration and complication rates. We studied the cases of 27 patients who were treated at our institution for acute compartment syndrome of the lower leg with a fasciotomy over a 10-year period. The fasciotomy wound was either treated with SSR or V.A.C. device. We recorded the number of procedures to definitive wound closure, days to wound closure, hospitalization days and sequelae rate. In the V.A.C. device group (18 patients) the mean number of procedures until definitive wound closure was 3.1, mean days until wound closure was 9.4 and mean days of hospitalization was 16.2. One patient suffered from a wound infection and one patient required a full thickness skin graft. In the SSR group (9 patients), the mean number of procedures was 1.8, mean days until definitive wound closure was 4.9 and mean days of hospitalization was 9.9. No sequelae were recorded. There was a statistically significant smaller number of procedures (p value 0.018), fewer days to definitive wound closure (p value 0.002) and fewer hospitalization days (p value 0.005) in the SSR group. Both SSR and V.A.C. device are safe and reliable for closure of fasciotomy wounds in children, whereas SSR seems to lead to shorter time until definitive wound closure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30014272
doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0985-9
pii: 10.1007/s00068-018-0985-9
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
809-814Références
ANZ J Surg. 2010 Mar;80(3):151-6
pubmed: 20575916
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2012 Dec;20(3):312-5
pubmed: 23255636
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Mar;456:20-1
pubmed: 17496749
ANZ J Surg. 2014 Oct;84(10):795
pubmed: 25270316
J Pediatr Orthop. 2016 Jun;36(4):410-5
pubmed: 25851687
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Feb;90(2):215-9
pubmed: 18256091
J Pediatr Orthop. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):680-8
pubmed: 11521042
J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Nov;27(11):616-21
pubmed: 23481923
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Sep;23(8):552-7
pubmed: 19704269
J Wound Care. 2003 Jun;12(6):212-3
pubmed: 12838597
Injury. 2014 May;45(5):890-3
pubmed: 22377275
Int Orthop. 2011 Apr;35(4):569-75
pubmed: 20401657
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 May 18;93(10):937-41
pubmed: 21593369
Injury. 2012 Oct;43(10):1743-6
pubmed: 22795846
Unfallchirurg. 1996 Apr;99(4):283-7
pubmed: 8658208