This study investigated a recent outbreak of P. aeruginosa at the University of Iowa Hospital, despite infection control measures. These bacteria can be present in hoses, pipes, selleck products and filters despite use of disinfectant, and can

proliferate rapidly if disinfectant levels are below recommended concentration. All 7 affected patients in the hospital during the 14-month period were male and ill (indicating likely low WBC and albumin); four died. The authors concluded that these infections were highly associated with the WP tubs. Patients who are immunocompromised are at significantly higher risk for P. aeruginosa infection. 35 Hess et al2 report that 6 psi of force can help cleanse healthy granulation tissue. However, pressure delivered to the wound surface through WP therapy can vary and be difficult to monitor and control. Higher

unspecified and unregulated pressures may damage developing granulation tissue, hinder migrating epidermal cells2 and neutrophils, Linsitinib known to be key to the innate immune response,40 and cause maceration.2 Using WP for the lower extremity places the extremity in a dependent position. This has been shown to increase venous hypertension and vascular congestion of that limb, both of which physiologically decrease the efficiency of wound healing, especially in those patients with venous insufficiency.2 and 41 These effects have not been studied in the upper extremity. Several alternatives to WP therapy exist for treating acute and chronic wounds. Below are summaries of a few alternatives identified in the literature

that address several of the purported goals of WP therapy. The most current, acceptable systematic reviews and pertinent high-level studies were reviewed in order to summarize the following treatment modalities. Pulsed lavage with vacuum (PLWV) is increasingly gaining favor over WP as the optimal mode for wound cleansing. This single-patient-use-technique utilizes an irrigating solution delivered under pressure via a powered device.2 and 12 A pressure Adenosine of 10–15 psi is generally accepted as most efficient to remove debris, decrease bacterial colonization, and prevent clinical infection.2 and 12 Future studies are required to determine the optimal delivery pressure and mode (continuous vs. intermittent/pulsed) for wound healing. Nonetheless, PLWV has demonstrated improved rates of tissue granulation (12.2%/week), a rate significantly faster than WP therapy (4.8%/week)2 and 12 Further studies must compare the effectiveness of PLWV to WP in other aspects of wound healing (e.g., healing rate, bacterial concentration, cost-effectiveness).12 Theoretically, PLWV risks the potential promotion of infection (e.g., bacteremia). However, no studies demonstrate increased risk with different pressures. Currently, it is recommended pressures be maintained below 15 psi to prevent theoretical spread of infection, until additional studies are conducted.