Table 9.
NPWTi‐d with ROCF‐CC: statements and survey results
| Consensus statement | Yes | No | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that contain ≤10% surface area coverage w/ clean, healthy and viable tissue | 10/13 (77%) | 3/13 (23%) | No |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that contain ≤20% surface area coverage w/ clean, healthy and viable tissue | 9/13 (69%) | 4/13 (31%) | No |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that contain ≤40% surface area coverage w/ clean, healthy and viable tissue | 12/13 (92%) | 1/13 (15%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that contain ≤60% surface area coverage w/ clean, healthy and viable tissue | 10/13 (77%) | 3/13 (23%) | No |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that contain thick exudate that may be difficult to remove with standard NPWT or NPWTi‐d with standard ROCF‐V dressing | 12/13 (92%) | 1/13 (8%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in contaminated wounds | 13/13 (100%) | 0/13 (0%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds with heavy bioburden | 11/13 (85%) | 2/13 (15%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in acutely infected wounds in conjunction with appropriate wound care such as debridement and systemic antibiotics | 13/13 (100%) | 0/13 (0%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in chronically infected wounds in conjunction with appropriate wound care such as debridement and systemic antibiotics | 12/13 (92%) | 1/13 (8%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds with inadequate sharp debridement | 9/13 (69%) | 4/13 (31%) | No |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered in wounds that could benefit from wound cleansing when there is a delay in sharp debridement | 13/13 (100%) | 0/13 (0%) | Yes |
| ROCF‐CC can be considered for wound cleansing in patients who are not candidates for sharp debridement | 13/13 (100%) | 0/13 (0%) | Yes |
Abbreviations: NPWTi‐d, negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time; ROCF, reticulated open‐cell foam.