Protocol > Research Protocol
JMIR Res Protoc. 26 November 2018; Volume 7 (Issue 11); e12334.; DOI:10.2196/12334
Alga A, Wong S, Haweizy R, Conneryd Lundgren K, von Schreeb J, et al.
JMIR Res Protoc. 26 November 2018; Volume 7 (Issue 11); e12334.; DOI:10.2196/12334
BACKGROUND
In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.
RESULTS
The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies.
In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.
RESULTS
The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Infect Dis. 22 May 2018; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-018-3149-y
Alga A, Wong S, Shoaib M, Lundgren KC, Giske CG, et al.
BMC Infect Dis. 22 May 2018; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-018-3149-y
Armed conflicts are a major contributor to injury and death globally. Conflict-related injuries are associated with a high risk of wound infection, but it is unknown to what extent infection directly relates to sustainment of life and restoration of function. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome and resource consumption among civilians receiving acute surgical treatment due to conflict-related injuries. Patients with and without wound infections were compared.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 1 December 2018; Volume 15 (Issue 12); 2709.; DOI:10.3390/ijerph15122709
Alga A, Karlow Herzog K, Alrawashdeh M, Wong S, Khankeh H, et al.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 1 December 2018; Volume 15 (Issue 12); 2709.; DOI:10.3390/ijerph15122709
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) constitute a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide, with a greater burden on low- and middle-income countries. War-related injuries generally lead to large tissue defects, with a high risk of infection. The aim of this study was to explore how physicians in a middle-income country in an emergency setting perceive HAI and antibiotic resistance (ABR). Ten physicians at a Jordanian hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières were interviewed face-to-face. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by qualitative content analysis with an inductive and deductive approach. The participants acknowledged risk factors of HAI and ABR development, such as patient behavior, high numbers of injured patients, limited space, and non-compliance with hygiene protocols, but did not express a sense of urgency or any course of action. Overuse and misuse of antibiotics were reported as main contributors to ABR development, but participants expressed no direct interrelationship between ABR and HAI. We conclude that due to high patient load and limited resources, physicians do not see HAI as a problem they can prioritize. The knowledge gained by this study could provide insights for the allocation of resources and development of hygiene and wound treatment protocols in resource-limited settings.
Protocol > Research Protocol
Alga A, Bashaireh K, Wong S, Lundgren KC, von Schreeb J
1 July 2018
Extremity wounds and fractures constitute the majority of conflict-related traumatic injuries, both for civilians (1) and combatants (2). Conflict-related injuries often result in soft and boney tissue being contaminated with foreign material, generally leading to secondary infection (3,4). Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely used in the treatment of wounds and is considered to promote wound healing and prevent infectious complications. The technique involves the application of a wound dressing through which a negative pressure is applied. Any wound and tissue fluid is drawn away from the area and collected into a canister. Due to a plastic film overlaying the wound the risk of wound contamination is reduced. NPWT is supported for use in a range of surgical applications, including after or in between debridements as a bridge to definite closure of soft tissue wounds (5). The technique has previously been used in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds with satisfactory results (6–8).
Cochrane reviews of NPWT for the treatment of chronic wounds (9) and surgical wounds (10) were inconclusive due to the lack of suitably powered, high-quality trials. A recent systematic review of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of NPWT for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds concluded there is a lack of evidence and that good RCTs are needed (11). For the use in limb trauma, NPWT is considered suitable for complex soft tissue injuries (12). NPWT appears to be an effective and safe adjunctive treatment of high-energy combat wounds but existing results are retrospective and lack follow-up (13). The support of RCTs is needed to establish best treatment strategies.
Summary of potential risks and benefits
Both treatment methods (NPWT and conventional dressings) are well established and used in Jordan for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. As neither of the two treatment modalities are known to be better in terms of outcome neither patient group may be regarded as receiving preferential treatment. NPWT is generally considered a safe treatment method. Potential benefits are shortened healing time and fewer infectious complications. Potential risks are pain, mainly associated with dressing changes (14) and bleeding, predominantly minor bleeding from granulation tissue (15). Conventional wound dressing has the potential benefit of being a safe treatment method used for many years. Since this method permits air into the wound there is a potential risk of contamination and the development of wound infection.
Objectives
We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NPWT in the treatment of traumatic extremity wounds in a context associated with a high level of contamination and infection.
Cochrane reviews of NPWT for the treatment of chronic wounds (9) and surgical wounds (10) were inconclusive due to the lack of suitably powered, high-quality trials. A recent systematic review of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of NPWT for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds concluded there is a lack of evidence and that good RCTs are needed (11). For the use in limb trauma, NPWT is considered suitable for complex soft tissue injuries (12). NPWT appears to be an effective and safe adjunctive treatment of high-energy combat wounds but existing results are retrospective and lack follow-up (13). The support of RCTs is needed to establish best treatment strategies.
Summary of potential risks and benefits
Both treatment methods (NPWT and conventional dressings) are well established and used in Jordan for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. As neither of the two treatment modalities are known to be better in terms of outcome neither patient group may be regarded as receiving preferential treatment. NPWT is generally considered a safe treatment method. Potential benefits are shortened healing time and fewer infectious complications. Potential risks are pain, mainly associated with dressing changes (14) and bleeding, predominantly minor bleeding from granulation tissue (15). Conventional wound dressing has the potential benefit of being a safe treatment method used for many years. Since this method permits air into the wound there is a potential risk of contamination and the development of wound infection.
Objectives
We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NPWT in the treatment of traumatic extremity wounds in a context associated with a high level of contamination and infection.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
World J Emerg Surg. 10 February 2022; Volume 17 (Issue 1); 9.; DOI:10.1186/s13017-022-00415-1
Alga A, Lofgren J, Haweizy R, Bashaireh K, Wong S, et al.
World J Emerg Surg. 10 February 2022; Volume 17 (Issue 1); 9.; DOI:10.1186/s13017-022-00415-1
BACKGROUND
Clinical outcomes after negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds are similar. In resource-limited settings, cost affects the choice of treatment. We aimed to estimate treatment-related costs of NPWT in comparison with standard treatment for conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
We derived outcome data from a randomized, controlled superiority trial that enrolled adult (≥ 18 years) patients with acute (≤ 72 h) conflict-related extremity wounds at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq. Primary endpoint was mean treatment-related healthcare costs (adjusted to 2019 US dollars).
RESULTS
Patients were enrolled from June 9, 2015, to October 24, 2018. A total of 165 patients (155 men [93.9%]; 10 women [6.1%]; and median [IQR] age, 28 [21-34] years) were included in the analysis. The cost per patient treated with NPWT was $142 above that of standard treatment. Overall, results were robust in a sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
With similar clinical outcomes compared to standard care, our results do not support the use of NPWT in routine treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds at civilian hospitals in resource scarce settings. Trial registration NCT02444598.
Clinical outcomes after negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds are similar. In resource-limited settings, cost affects the choice of treatment. We aimed to estimate treatment-related costs of NPWT in comparison with standard treatment for conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
We derived outcome data from a randomized, controlled superiority trial that enrolled adult (≥ 18 years) patients with acute (≤ 72 h) conflict-related extremity wounds at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq. Primary endpoint was mean treatment-related healthcare costs (adjusted to 2019 US dollars).
RESULTS
Patients were enrolled from June 9, 2015, to October 24, 2018. A total of 165 patients (155 men [93.9%]; 10 women [6.1%]; and median [IQR] age, 28 [21-34] years) were included in the analysis. The cost per patient treated with NPWT was $142 above that of standard treatment. Overall, results were robust in a sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
With similar clinical outcomes compared to standard care, our results do not support the use of NPWT in routine treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds at civilian hospitals in resource scarce settings. Trial registration NCT02444598.