AIM. The aim of our study was to summarise the results of vacuum therapy in 2007–2009.
METHODS AND RESULTS. The data of 55 patients was retrospectively analysed, among them 20 with acute wounds, 22 with chronic ulcers, 13 with postoperative complications (11 pat ient s wi t h pos t s t e r notomy mediastinitis, one with vascular prosthesis infection and one with endoprosthesis infection). Patient age, length of hospital stay, duration of vacuum therapy and wound healing were estimated. The results were good in 80% and sat isfactory in 7% of the patients. In the chronic ulcer group the treatment was benef icial in 95% of the cases. Overall, in the group of poststernotomy mediastinitis, vascular prosthesis infection and endoprosthesis infection the results were good in 92% of the cases. For traumatic wounds, good results were obtained in 55% of the cases. We compared our results with those of Wada et al, 2006. Their results were similar to ours: good or satisfactory results in 86% of the cases vs. 87% in our study.
CONCLUSIONS. In our study vacuum therapy was beneficial in 87% of the cases. Further randomized prospective studies, involving a control group to evaluate the effect and efficacy of different regimes of vacuum therapy on different types of soft tissue defects, is needed.