American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 185–194 | Cite as

Mechanisms and Clinical Applications of the Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC) Device

A Review
  • Mark L. Venturi
  • Christopher E. Attinger
  • Ali N. Mesbahi
  • Christopher L. Hess
  • Katherine S. Graw
Review Article


The use of sub-atmospheric pressure dressings, available commercially as the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device, has been shown to be an effective way to accelerate healing of various wounds. The optimal sub-atmospheric pressure for wound healing appears to be approximately 125mm Hg utilizing an alternating pressure cycle of 5 minutes of suction followed by 2 minutes off suction. Animal studies have demonstrated that this technique optimizes blood flow, decreases local tissue edema, and removes excessive fluid from the wound bed. These physiologic changes facilitate the removal of bacteria from the wound. Additionally, the cyclical application of sub-atmospheric pressure alters the cytoskeleton of the cells in the wound bed, triggering a cascade of intracellular signals that increases the rate of cell division and subsequent formation of granulation tissue. The combination of these mechanisms makes the VAC device an extremely versatile tool in the armamentarium of wound healing. This is evident in the VAC device’s wide range of clinical applications, including treatment of infected surgical wounds, traumatic wounds, pressure ulcers, wounds with exposed bone and hardware, diabetic foot ulcers, and venous stasis ulcers. VAC has also proven useful in reconstruction of wounds by allowing elective planning of the definitive reconstructive surgery without jeopardizing the wound or outcome. Furthermore, VAC has significantly increased the skin graft success rate when used as a bolster over the freshly skin-grafted wound. VAC is generally well tolerated and, with few contraindications or complications, is fast becoming a mainstay of current wound care.


Granulation Tissue Skin Graft Pressure Ulcer Granulation Tissue Formation Wound Surface 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to acknowledge Daniel Lane as the medical photographer of this manuscript. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. Dr Attinger is on the Kinetic Concepts, Inc. speakers bureau.


  1. 1.
    Hopf HW, Humphrey L, Puzziferri N, et al. Adjuncts to preparing wounds for closure: hyperbaric oxygen, growth factors, skin substitutes, negative pressure wound therapy (vacuum-assisted closure). Foot Ankle Clin. 2001 Dec; 6 (4): 661–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M, et al. Vacuum sealing as a treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 1993; 96 (9): 488–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleischmann W, Lang E, Klinzl L. Vacuum assisted wound closure after dermatofasciotomy of the lower extremity [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 1996; 99 (4): 283–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleischmann W, Russ M, Marquardt C. Closure of defect wounds by combined vacuum sealing with instrumental skin expansion [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 1996; 99 (12): 970–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleischmann W, Lang E, Russ M. Treatment of infection by vacuum sealing [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 1997; 100 (4): 301–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997; 38 (6): 563–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997; 38 (6): 553–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urschel JD, Scott PG, Williams HTG. The effect of mechanical stress on soft and hard tissue repair: a review. Br J Plast Surg. 1988; 41: 182–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Olenius M, Dalsgaard C, Wickman M. Mitotic activity in the expanded human skin. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 91: 213–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: part I. the influence of stability and fixation on soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop. 1989; 238: 249–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 114 (5): 1086–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robson MC, Stenberg BD, Heffers JP. Wound healing alterations caused by infection. Clin Plast Surg. 1990; 17: 485–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krizek TJ, Robson MC. The evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg. 1975; 130: 579–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robson MC, Heggers JP. Delayed wound closure based on bacterial counts. J Surg Oncol. 1970; 2: 379–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robson MC, Heggers JP. Bacterial quantification of open wounds. Mil Med. 1969; 134: 19–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeFranzo AJ, Argenta LC, Marks MW, et al. The use of vacuum-assisted closure therapy for the treatment of lower-extremity wounds with exposed bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Oct; 108 (5): 1184–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gwan-Nulla DN, Casal RS. Toxic shock syndrome associated with the use of the vacuum assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg. 2001; 47: 552–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clare MP, Fitzgibbons TC, McMullen ST, et al. Experience with the vacuum assisted closure negative pressure technique in the treatment of non-healing diabetic and dysvascular wounds. Foot Ankle Int. 2002; 23 (10): 896–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Armstrong DG, Attinger CE, Boulton AJ, et al. Guidelines regarding negative wound therapy (NPWT) in the diabetic foot. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2004; 50 (4 Suppl. 4B): 3S–27SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byrd HS, Spicer TE, Cierny G. Management of open tibial fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985; 76: 719–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Godina M. Early microsurgical reconstruction of complex trauma of the extremities. Clin Plast Surg. 1986; 13 (4): 619–20Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joseph E, Harried CA, Bergman S, et al. A prospective randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus standard therapy of chronic nonhealing wounds. Wounds. 2000; 12 (3): 60–7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edington MT, Brown KR, Seabrook BR, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of negative pressure wound dressing for diabetic foot wounds. Ann Vase Surg. 2003; 17 (6): 645–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCallon SK, Knight CA, Valiulus JP, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000; 46: 28–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ford CN, Reinhard ER, Yeah D, et al. Interim analysis of a prospective randomized trial of vacuum assisted closure versus the Healthpoint system in the management of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg. 2002; 49: 55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Armstrong DG, Lavery AL, Abu-Rumman P, et al. Outcomes of sub atmospheric pressure wound dressing therapy on wounds of the diabetic foot. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2002; 48: 64–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edmonds M, Bates M, Doxford M, et al. New treatments in ulcer healing and wound infection. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2000; 16 Suppl. 1: S51–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philbeck TE, Whittington KT, Millsap MIL et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of externally applied negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of wounds in home healthcare Medicare patients. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1999; 45 (11): 41–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith N. The benefits of VAC therapy in the management of pressure ulcers. Br J Nurs. 2004; 13 (22): 1359–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wanner MB, Schwarzl F, Strub B, et al. Vacuum-assisted wound closure for cheaper and more comfortable healing of pressure sores: a prospective study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2003; 37 (1): 28–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greer SE, Duthie E, Cartolano B, et al. Techniques for applying subatmospheric pressure dressing to wounds in difficult regions of anatomy. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 1999; 26: 250–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mullner T, Mrkonjic L, Kwasny O, et al. The use of negative pressure to promote the healing of tissue defects: a clinical trial using the vacuum sealing technique. Br J Plast Surg. 1997; 50: 194–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schneider AM, Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC. Anew and reliable method of securing skin grafts to the difficult recipient bed. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 102 (4): 1195–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Espensen EH, Nixon BP, Lavery LA, et al. Use of subatmospheric (VAC) therapy to improve bioengineered tissue grafting in diabetic foot wounds. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2002; 92: 395–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Attinger C, Hopf H, Marks MW, et al. New approaches to difficult wound healing challenges. Panel at the 73rd American Society for Plastic Surgery; 2004 Oct 9–13; Philadelphia (PA)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scherer LA, Shiver S, Chang M, et al. The vacuum assisted closure device: a method of securing skin grafts and improving graft survival. Arch Surg. 2002; 137: 930–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molnar JA, DeFranzo AJ, Marks MW. Single-stage approach to skin grafting the exposed skull. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 105 (1): 174–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Genecov DG, Schneider AM, Morykwas MJ, et al. A controlled subatmospheric pressure dressing increases the rate of skin graft donor site reepithelialization. Ann Plast Surg. 1998; 40 (3): 219–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Howard M, Attinger CE, Cooper P. Soft tissue strategies around the Ilizarov [abstract]. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society 19th Annual Summer Meeting; 2003 Jun 27–29; Hilton Head (SC)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morykwas MJ, Faler BJ, Pearce DJ, et al. Effects of varying levels of subatmospheric pressure on the rate of granulation tissue formation in experimental wounds in swine. Ann Plast Surg. 2001; 47 (5): 547–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Webb LX. New techniques in wound management: vacuum-assisted wound closure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002; 10: 303–11PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark L. Venturi
    • 1
  • Christopher E. Attinger
    • 1
  • Ali N. Mesbahi
    • 1
  • Christopher L. Hess
    • 1
  • Katherine S. Graw
    • 1
  1. 1.The Limb CenterGeorgetown University HospitalWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations