Article Sidebar

Issue: No. 2 (2026)
Section: Articles
Date Published: 30/08/2026
Views 0
How to Cite
Trinh, V. T., Nguyen, N. S., & Dinh, X. C. (2026). Evaluation of the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in treating open diabetic foot ulcers at Nghe An General Friendship Hospital. Journal of Disaster Medicine and Burn Injuries, 2. https://jbdmp.vn/index.php/yhthvb/article/view/560

Evaluation of the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in treating open diabetic foot ulcers at Nghe An General Friendship Hospital

Trinh Van Thong1, , Nguyen Ngoc Son1, Dinh Xuan Chuong1
1 Nghe An General Friendship Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of VAC therapy compared to conventional dressing in achieving complete wound healing in DFU patients. 
Subjects and methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at Nghe An General Friendship Hospital between January 2024 and June 2025. A total of 54 patients diagnosed with DFU and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled and randomized into two groups: The VAC therapy group (n = 27) and the conventional dressing group (n = 27). Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, Wagner classification, and comorbidities, were recorded. VAC therapy was applied with negative pressure maintained at 125mmHg, and dressings were changed every 24 - 48 hours. The conventional dressing group underwent saline-moistened gauze dressings changed daily. Wound healing was assessed using granulation tissue visual scores, reduction in ulcer size, and time to complete epithelialization. Pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and infection rates were documented. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24, with a p-value of < 0.05 considered significant.
Results: Patients in the VAC therapy group demonstrated a significantly shorter wound healing time (mean 24.3 ± 5.1 days) compared to the conventional dressing group (mean 39.8 ± 6.4 days, p < 0.001). The mean granulation tissue formation rate was higher in the VAC group (2.3 cm²/day) than in the conventional dressing group (1.4 cm²/day, p = 0.002). A significantly greater percentage reduction in ulcer area was observed in the VAC group (74.5%) than in the conventional dressing group (48.7%, p < 0.001). Pain scores (VAS) at 24 and 48 hours were lower in the VAC therapy group (p < 0.05), indicating better pain control. Infection rates were also reduced in the VAC group (14.8%) compared to the conventional dressing group (29.6%). The incidence of bleeding and minor amputations did not differ significantly between the groups. 
Conclusion: VAC therapy significantly enhances wound healing in DFU patients compared to conventional dressing by promoting faster granulation tissue formation, decreasing overall healing time. 

Keywords

Diabetic foot ulcer, negative pressure wound therapy, conventional dressing, wound healing, granulation tissue, infection control

Article Details

References

1. James SMD, Sureshkumar S, Elamurugan TP, Debasis N, Vijayakumar C, Palanivel C. Comparison of Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy and Conventional Dressing on Wound Healing in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Niger J Surg. 2019 Jan-Jun;25(1):14-20.
2. Kunze KN, Hamid KS, Lee S, Halvorson JJ, Earhart JS, Bohl DD. Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Mar;41(3):364-372.
3. Armstrong DG, Attinger CE, Boulton AJ, Frykberg RG, Kirsner RS, Lavery LA, Mills JL. Guidelines regarding negative wound therapy (NPWT) in the diabetic foot. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2004 Apr;50(4B Suppl):3S27S.
4. Karatepe O, Eken I, Acet E, Unal O, Mert M, Koc B, Karahan S, Filizcan U, Ugurlucan M, Aksoy M. Vacuum assisted closure improves the quality of life in patients with diabetic foot. Acta Chir Belg. 2011 SepOct;111(5):298-302.
5. Eneroth M, van Houtum WH. The value of debridement and Vacuum-Assisted Closure (V.A.C.) Therapy in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008 May-Jun;24 Suppl 1:S76-80.
6. Venturi ML, Attinger CE, Mesbahi AN, Hess CL, Graw KS. Mechanisms and clinical applications of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) Device: a review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2005;6(3):185-94.
7. Nather A, Chionh SB, Han AY, Chan PP, Nambiar A. Effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy in the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2010 May;39(5):353-8.
8. Mendonca DA, Cosker T, Makwana NK. Vacuum-assisted closure to aid wound healing in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Sep;26(9):761-6.
9. Shin SH, Park IK, Kang JW, Lee YS, Chung YG. Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC) Using Multiple Foam Pieces for Hidden Space Drainage through Less Exposure in Musculoskeletal Infections. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2018 Sep;23(3):369-376.
10. Uğurlar M, Sönmez MM, Armağan R, Eren OT. Comparison of two different vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) treatments of multiple chronic diabetic foot wounds in the same extremity. Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep;23(3):173-178.
11. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366(9498): 1704-1710.
12. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(4): 631-636.
13. Lavery LA, Boulton AJ, Niezgoda JA,Sheehan P. A comparison of diabetic foot ulcer outcomes using negative pressure wound therapy versus historical standard of care. International wound journal. 2007; 4(2): 103-113.
14. Singh B, Sharma D, Jaswal KS. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy v/s conventional dressings in the management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers in a tertiary care hospital in North India. Int J Sci Res. 2017;6:948-53.
15. Wang R, Feng Y, Di B. Comparisons of negative pressure wound therapy and ultrasonic debridement for diabetic foot ulcers: a network meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):12548-56.
16. Schintler MV. Negative pressure therapy: theory and practice. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012 Feb;28 Suppl 1:72-7.
17. Ravari H, Modaghegh MH, Kazemzadeh GH, Johari HG, Vatanchi AM, Sangaki A, Shahrodi MV. Comparison of vacuum-assisted closure and moist wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013 Jan;6(1):17-20.
18. Mark T Eginton , Kellie R Brown, Gary R Seabrook, Jonathan B Towne, Robert A Cambria. A prospective randomized evaluation of negative-pressure wound dressings for diabetic foot wounds. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;17(6):645-9
19. Sibbald RG, Mahoney J; V.A.C. Therapy Canadian Consensus Group. A consensus report on the use of vacuum-assisted closure in chronic, difficult-to-heal wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003 Nov;49(11):52-66.
20. Armstrong DG, Andros G. Use of negative pressure wound therapy to help facilitate limb preservation. Int Wound J. 2012 Aug;9 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):1-7.
21. Muhammad Ashad Kabir, Sabiha Samad, Fahmida Ahmed, et al. Mobile Apps for Wound Assessment and Monitoring: Limitations, Advancements and Opportunities. J Med Syst. 2024; 48(1):80.