The fluid immersion simulation system (FIS) has demonstrated good clinical applicability. This is the first study to compare surgical flap closure outcomes of FIS with an air-fluidised bed (AFB), considered as standard of care. The success of closure after 14 days post-op was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were incidences of complications in the first 2 weeks after surgery and the rate of acceptability of the device. Thirty-eight subjects were in the FIS group while 42 subjects were placed in the AFB group. Flap failure rate was similar between groups (14% vs. 12%; p = 0.84). Complications, notably dehiscence and maceration, were significantly higher in the FIS group (40% vs. 17%; p = 0.0296). The addition of a microclimate regulation device (ClimateCare®) to FIS for the last 43 patients showed a significant decrease in the rate of flap failure (71% vs. 16%; p = 0.001) and incidence of complications (33% vs. 0%; p = 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference between the FIS and air-fluidised bed (AFB) in the rate of acceptability (nurse acceptance: 1.49 vs. 1.72; p = 0.8; patient acceptance: 2.08 vs. 2.06; p = 0.17), which further illustrates the potential implementation of this tool in a patient-care setting. Our results show that the use of ClimateCare® in combination with FIS can be a better alternative to the AFB in surgical closure of pressure ulcers.
Keywords: ClimateCare® surface; air fluidised bed; flap closure; fluid immersion simulation system; pressure ulcer.
© 2022 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.