PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Comparing negative pressure and silver foam dressings for cat wounds

By Nolff, Mirja Christine et al.·Published in Journal of feline medicine and surgery·2017·1 Clinic for Small Animal Surgery and Reproduction, Germany·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Retrospective comparison of negative pressure wound therapy and silver-coated foam dressings in open-wound treatment in cats.

Species:
cat
Drinking & peeingCats

Plain-English summary

A group of 20 cats with complicated open wounds received either negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or a silver-coated foam dressing to see which treatment worked better. The cats treated with NPWT healed significantly faster, taking an average of about 26 days compared to nearly 40 days for those with foam dressings. Additionally, the NPWT group had fewer complications and infections during treatment. This suggests that NPWT is a more effective option for treating infected wounds in cats, leading to quicker recovery and better overall outcomes.

People also search for: cat wound treatment options · negative pressure wound therapy for cats · cat healing time for wounds · silver-coated foam dressing for cats

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for the treatment of complicated wounds in cats. Methods Twenty cats undergoing open-wound treatment in two clinics were classed according to treatment method: NPWT (group A, n = 10) and polyurethane foam dressing (group B, n = 10). Pairs of patients from each group were matched based on wound conformation, localisation and underlying cause. Cats from both groups were compared in terms of duration of previous treatment, time to closure and complications. Results Signalment, duration of previous treatment, antibiotic and antiseptic treatment, and bacterial status were comparable between groups. Total time to wound closure was significantly shorter ( P = 0.046, strong effect size; Cohen d = 0.8) in group A (25.8 days, range 11.0-57.0 days) compared with group B (39.5 days, range 28.0-75.0 days). NPWT-treated wounds suffered fewer complications and became septic less frequently during treatment compared with wounds treated with a foam dressing. The progression of fat tissue necrosis was particularly well controlled under NPWT, resulting in fewer deaths due to this condition in this group. However, although a strong effect of NPWT on the progression of infection, fever and sepsis was detected (Cramer-V 0.5), this difference was not significant. Conclusions and relevance This study demonstrated that time to healing was considerably shorter, and complication rate lower, in NPWT-treated animals compared with foam dressing-treated cats. In particular, the effective management of infection by NPWT emphasises the value of NPWT in the treatment of cats suffering from infected wounds.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27102692/