Table 3.
wound outcome, patient outcome, and LCNPWT challenges reported for study participants, at Baptist Hospital Mutengene, Cameroon, March 2021 to March 2022 (N=41)
| The margins look compared to the last change | |
|---|---|
| Better | 47 (89%) |
| Same | 5 (9%) |
| Worse | 1 (2%) |
| Overall, the wound looks compared to the last change | |
| Better | 44 (86%) |
| Same | 5 (10%) |
| Worse | 2 (4%) |
| Skin grafted? (Yes) | 9 (50%) |
| Was wound closure achieved? (Yes) | 12 (80%) |
| Did the patient develop a systemic infection from the wound? (Yes) | 0 (0%) |
| Did the patient become septic at any point? (Yes) | 0 (0%) |
| Was the limb amputated? (Yes) | 4 (21%) |
| Did the patient expire? (Yes) | 1 (5%) |
| Issues with LCNPWT pump (Yes) | 11 (22%) |
| Sealing | 9 (64%) |
| Pump | 3 (21%) |
| Bottle | 1 (7%) |
| Receiver | 1 (7%) |
| Was NPWT effective in helping you manage the patient's wound? (Yes) | 15 (83%) |
| Did you experience any challenges in using NPWT while caring for this patient? (Yes) | 2 (11%) |
LCNPWT: low-cost negative pressure wound therapy; challenges in using LCNWPT are reported by the treatment provided. Percentages are calculated based on available responses, not total number of patients in the study (N=41), and therefore may vary by category