Abstract: Method: Informed consent taken in the vernacular language. Wounds of the patients rectangularied while doing debridement for the purpose of measurement. Maximum transverse diameter is taken and a line parallel to the perpendicular line dissecting it through midpoint is taken. Sample collection (As per microbiological parameters) for the purpose of bacterial load done after debridement of wound under aseptic precaution. VAC will be applied as per the norms and setting noted. Measurement of wound dimension and wound assessment score done at the time of application of VAC /Dressing & after removal of VAC / Dressing after 8 days. Sample for bacterial load and type of bacteria send prior and after application of VAC / Conventional dressing. Bacterial load and type of bacteria, noted as per microbiological report.
Result: The above table shows the comparison of Mean age of patients of two groups. The student T test applied to determine the difference between the mean age of patients of two groups which was found to be non significant (P>0.05). The mean age of Dressing group (40.90) is higher than mean age of VAC group (39.50) but no significant difference was found between their mean age.
The above table shows the comparison of Mean reduction in wound area of patients of two groups. The student T test applied to determine the difference between two Groups at Pre and Post time interval which was found to be statistically significant (P <0.05). The mean difference in wound area of VAC group (17.933) is significantly higher than the mean difference in wound area dressing group (8.300) which means that the improvement of affected wound area at pre and post time interval is large in VAC group.
Conclusion: This is a prospective cohort study of 60 patients, 30 cases (male 20, female 10, mean age 39.5 years) and 30 control (male 23, female 7, mean age 40.9 years) with infected wounds treated using VAC. The use of the VAC led to a mean reduction of 17.93 cm2, while with conventional Dressing mean reduction of 8.3 cm2, in the wound area (p < 0.05).
