A Comparative Study of the Improved Negative-Pressure Drainage Tube and the Penrose Silicone Drainage Tube: Which Is More Beneficial for Wounds from Deep Infections Healing? A Rabbit Model Study.

Background: Postoperative orthopedic wounds frequently lead to deep infections, and conventional drainage tubes exhibit inadequate drainage capacity. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of an innovative and improved negative-pressure wound irrigation drainage tube in enhancing infection control and facilitating wound healing. Methods: Forty New Zealand rabbits were randomly assigned to five groups: A (control), B (abscess model), C (Penrose drain), D (improved negative-pressure wound irrigation drainage tube with drainage), and E (improved negative-pressure wound irrigation drainage tube with drainage and irrigation). A deep wound infection model was established, and its success was assessed using Gram staining and mass spectrometry. Daily weight, temperature, and drainage volume were recorded for each rabbit group. In vitro cellular experiments were performed to assess the biocompatibility of the materials. Histological examinations were conducted on postoperative day 14 to evaluate wound healing. Results: Bacterial culture demonstrated the consistent presence of primary pathogenic bacteria in all groups, confirming the successful establishment of the model. Following surgery, all rabbit groups showed a consistent increase in body weight with no significant variation ( Conclusion: The improved negative-pressure wound irrigation drainage tube demonstrated distinct advantages over the conventional Penrose silicone drain in controlling inflammation, optimizing wound treatment, and promoting wound healing in deep wound infections.