Back to Wound management

CASE STUDY

Venous Leg Ulcer - 56-day Treatment

Patient
  • A female patient with presented with a venous leg ulcer present for 7 years.
Wound
  • The wound had been previously treated with AQUACEL™ Extra, AQUACEL™ Foam dressings and compression bandaging.
  • On 7th June 2017, the Avelle™ NPWT System was applied using the 16cm x 21cm dressing. Prior to the dressing application, the wound measured 6.5cm x 4.5cm x 0.25cm and presented with moderate levels of exudate and was granulating. The peri-wound skin was assessed to be healthy.
Management & Results
  • After 19 dressing changes, one replacement pump and 56 days of treatment, the wound had sufficiently
    • progressed to be treated with AQUACEL™ Extra and AQUACEL™ Foam.
  • The patient experienced no pain on the application of the system, during wear and only a small amount of pain (score 1 on the EVA scale) upon dressing removal.
  • At the end of the evaluation period, the level of granulating tissue present in the wound bed had increased and the condition of the wound and peri-wound skin had improved.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Next case study: Dehisced Surgical Incision – 28 Day Treatment
See Next
References

*Battery change may be required during pump lifetime.
 +As demonstrated in-vitro

  • 1. AvelleTM NPWT System Post Market Evaluation Report. Data on file. 2018. ConvaTec.
  • 2. Bowler P, Jones S, Towers V, Booth R, Parsons D, Walker M, 2010. Dressing conformability and silver-containing wound dressings. Wounds UK; 6: 14-20.
  • 3. Walker M, Jones S, Parsons D, Booth R, Cochrane C, Bowler P, 2011. Evaluation of low-adherent antimicrobial dressings. Wounds UK; 7: 32-45.
  • 4. Waring MJ, Parsons D. Physico-chemical characterisation of carboxymethylated spun cellulose fibres. Biomaterials. 2001; 22:903-912.
  • 5. Newman, G.R., et al., Visualisation of bacterial sequestration and bactericidal activity within hydrating Hydrofiber wound dressings. Biomaterials, 2006. 27(7):1129-39.
  • 6. Walker M, Hobot JA, Newman GR, Bowler PG. Scanning electron microscopic examination of bacterial immobilisation in a carboxymethylcellulose (Aquacel) and alginate dressings. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(5):883-890. 7. Coutts P, Sibbald RG. The effect of asilvercontaining Hydrofi ber dressing on superficial wound bed and bacterial balance of chronic wounds. Int Wound J. 2005; 2(4): 348-356.
  • 8. Robinson BJ. The use of a hydrofiber dressing in wound management. J Wound Care. 2000; 9(1):32-34.
  • 9. Jones S, Bowler PG, Walker M. Antimicrobial activity of silver-containing dressings is influenced by dressing conformability with a wound surface. WOUNDS. 2005; 17(9): 263-270.
  • 10. Barnea Y, Amir A, Leshem D, et al. Clinical comparative study of Aquacel and paraffin gauze dressing for split-skin donor site treatment. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53(2):132-136.
  • 11. Kogan L, Moldavsky M, Szvalb S, Govrin- Yehudain J. Comparative study of Aquacel and Silverol treatment in burns. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2004;17(4):201-207.
  • 12. DM, Foster KN, Hermans MHE, Rick C, 2004. AQUACEL® Ag in the management of partial-thickness burns: Results of a Clinical Trial. J. Burn Care Rehabil; 25:89-97.
  • 13. Bishop SM, Walker M, Rogers AA, Chen WYJ. Moisture balance: optimising the wound-dressing interface. J Wound Care. 2003; 12:125-128.
  • 14. Assessment of the in-vitro properties Avelle™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Dressing. WHRI4520 MS128. Data on fi le. 2015. ConvaTec.
  • 15. Hoekstra MJ et al. A histological comparison of acute inflmamatory responses with a hydrofibre or tulle gauze dressing. J Wound Care. 2002
  • 16. HFM-2015-017. Data on file. 2015. ConvaTec Inc.

®/™ Avelle, Hydrofiber, AQUACEL and Sensi-Care are trademarks of Convatec Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2022 Convatec Inc. AP-030361