Trial of Versajet Compared With Conventional Treatment in Acute and Chronic Wounds

It is increasingly recognised that the debridement of devitalised, bacterially contaminated or senescent tissue is an essential component of the effective treatment of delayed healing wounds. Whilst passive autolytic or enzymatic debridement procedures have their place, where patients are unable to tolerate any surgical procedure, the judicious use of surgical debridement to rapidly remove necrotic, contaminated tissue and slough has been shown to offer many advantages in returning a wound to a healing trajectory. Whilst surgical debridement procedures have conventionally been performed with scalpels and other sharp instrumentation, alternative techniques such as the VERSAJET Hydrosurgery System are becoming more widespread. To increase the adoption of this new technology, it is essential that clinical improvements are assessed alongside the potential impact on the costs of debridement and the net financial impact on the hospital. In fiscal year 2004, there were more than 57,000 discharges under DRG code 217 ('wound debridement and skin graft except hand) in the United States. Mean length of stay (all payers) was 11 days and mean charges were $52,800. In 2005, Medicare funded 15,800 discharges under this code. Average charges for these patients were $56,500 and average reimbursement was $18,2654. In this context it is particularly important that the potential patient benefit and cost impact of new technology is fully assessed. It is hypothesised that a decrease in the time to achieve stable wound closure will not only lead to a patient benefit, but also a potential reduction in the cost of treatment due to e.g. repeat procedures, longer hospital stay, infection etc. The purpose of this study is to investigate the difference in time to closure of wounds surgically excised with VERSAJET Hydrosurgery System and those surgically excised using conventional operating room techniques.