ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07790991BukavuNPWTRCUpdated Aug 27, 2026

Low-cost Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Dressings for Gustilo IIIb Tibial Fractures (Bukavu Pilot RCT)

An interventional study of intervention2: standard wound dressing and Intervention1: Low-cost NPWT in Open Tibia Fracture, sponsored by Université Catholique de Bukavu. Not yet recruiting at 2 sites in Democratic Republic of the Congo. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-27.

Sponsored by Université Catholique de Bukavu · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
66
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely used in the management of acute and chronic wounds, but commercial systems are costly and may be inaccessible in low-resource settings. This pilot randomised controlled trial will assess the feasibility of a future definitive multicentre trial comparing a locally developed low-cost NPWT system with standard wound dressings in adults with Gustilo-Anderson type IIIb open tibial fractures.

Methods and analysis: Adults aged ≥18 years presenting to the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology of the Hôpital Provincial Général de Référence de Bukavu between 1 January and 31 December 2027, within 72 hours of sustaining an open tibial fracture, will be screened. Final eligibility will be confirmed after initial surgical debridement; patients with Gustilo-Anderson type IIIb injuries will be randomised 1:1 to low-cost NPWT or standard wound dressings. A pragmatic sample of 66 participants (33 per group) is planned.

The pilot is not powered for clinical effectiveness. Feasibility outcomes will include recruitment, consent, intervention delivery and fidelity, crossover and discontinuation, retention, data completeness and safety. Prespecified progression criteria will inform the design of a future definitive multicentre trial.

All randomised participants will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Clinical outcomes will be exploratory, with fracture-related infection within 3 months as the main exploratory clinical outcome. Effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals, with emphasis on magnitude and precision rather than formal hypothesis testing.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Université Catholique de Bukavu (UCB/CIES/PB/GM/012/2026) and will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific meetings, and accessible summaries for participants and the local clinical community.

Strengths and limitations of this study

  • This pilot randomised controlled trial will provide prospective evidence on the feasibility of evaluating a locally developed low-cost negative pressure wound therapy system for Gustilo-Anderson type IIIb open tibial fractures in a resource-limited setting.
  • Random allocation with concealed allocation and blinded assessment of fracture-related infection and digital wound measurements, where feasible, will reduce important sources of bias.
  • Prespecified feasibility outcomes and progression criteria will inform the design, sample size, recruitment strategy and outcome-assessment procedures of a future definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial.
  • The single-centre design and small pragmatic sample size limit the generalisability of the findings and preclude definitive conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of low-cost negative pressure wound therapy.
  • The nature of the interventions prevents blinding of participants and treating clinicians, and limited access to some diagnostic investigations may affect the completeness of fracture-related infection assessment.
Read the detailed description
  1. Recruitment rate during the recruitment period Recruitment rate will be calculated as the number of participants randomised per month from the beginning to the end of the recruitment period. The result will be reported as the total number of participants recruited, the duration of the recruitment period and the mean number of participants recruited per month.
  2. Proportion of eligible participants who provide informed consent This measure will be calculated as the number of eligible participants who provide informed consent divided by the total number of eligible participants approached. The result will be reported as a number and percentage.
  3. Proportion of randomised participants who receive the assigned intervention This measure will be calculated as the number of randomised participants who receive the intervention to which they were allocated divided by the total number of randomised participants. The result will be reported as a number and percentage overall and separately for each treatment group.
  4. Proportion of participants adhering to the assigned wound-management protocol Adherence will be assessed according to the prespecified protocol requirements for low-cost negative pressure wound therapy or standard wound dressings. The result will be reported as the number and percentage of participants meeting the prespecified adherence criteria in each treatment group.
  5. Proportion of randomised participants completing the prespecified follow-up assessments This measure will be calculated as the number of randomised participants who complete the prespecified follow-up assessments divided by the total number of randomised participants. The result will be reported as a number and percentage overall and by treatment group.
  6. Completeness of clinical outcome data at the final follow-up assessment Data completeness will be calculated as the number of required outcome assessments completed divided by the total number of outcome assessments expected according to the study protocol. The result will be reported as a percentage, overall and separately for each treatment group.

Clinical outcomes will be considered exploratory outcomes. They will be summarised using the prespecified clinical measures and will not be used to draw definitive conclusions regarding treatment effectiveness in this pilot trial.

02

Conditions studied

  • Open Tibia Fracture

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • low cost NPWT
  • Standard dressing
  • Gustillo IIIb
  • tibia fracture
  • pilot RCT
  • Low ressource setting
  • Bukavu
03

In context

Tibial Fractures

135 studies on the registry are indexed under Tibial Fractures; 37 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 66 is close to the median of 65 across 91 interventional studies indexed under Tibial Fractures.

Browse Tibial Fractures studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Université Catholique de Bukavu as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • All adult patients (age ≥18 years)
  • admitted at orthopedic and trauma departement
  • between 1 January 2027 and 31 December 2027,
  • within 72 hours of sustaining an open tibial fracture Gustilo IIIb
  • before and after debridement

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • diabetes mellitus,
  • peripheral vascular disease,
  • vascular injury requiring repair,
  • chronic use,
  • coagulopathies,
  • cancer;
  • open fractures older than 3 days;
  • fractures previously operated on;
  • chronic osteomyelitis;
  • primary amputation,
  • ,
  • multiple fractures,
  • polytrauma,
  • pregnancy;
  • preexisting dermatological conditions.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Corticosteroids (steroids)

Anti-inflammatory medicines such as prednisone, prednisolone and dexamethasone — not the anabolic steroids used for muscle.

Studies differ in what they allow: check which steroid medicines, routes (tablets, injections, creams, inhalers, eye drops) and doses this study accepts.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
66 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Arm 1: Low-cost NPWT

    Low-cost negative pressure wound therapy applied after debridement according to protocol

    Device: Intervention1: Low-cost NPWT

  • Active comparator
    Arm 2: standard wound dressing

    Conventional wound dressing applied after debridement according to protocol

    Device: intervention2: standard wound dressing

Interventions

  • Deviceintervention2: standard wound dressing

    Standard wound dressing applied after debridement for Gustilo type IIIb open tibia fractures, with dressing changes according to the study protocol

  • DeviceIntervention1: Low-cost NPWT

    Low-cost NPWT :low-cost negative pressure therapy dressing applied after debridement for Gustilo type IIIb open tibia fractures, with dressing changes according to the study protocol.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number and percentage of participants meeting the prespecified feasibility criteria

    Feasibility will be assessed using prespecified criteria related to recruitment, informed consent, receipt of the assigned intervention, adherence to the assigned wound-management protocol, completion of follow-up assessments and completeness of outcome data. Each criterion will be reported as the number and percentage of participants meeting the criterion. Recruitment will additionally be summarised as the number of participants randomised per month during the recruitment period. Results will be reported overall and separately for the low-cost negative pressure wound therapy and standard wound-dressing groups. Clinical outcomes will be considered exploratory and will not be used to draw definitive conclusions regarding treatment effectiveness.

    Time frame: From the start of recruitment through completion of the final follow-up assessment at 12 months after randomisation

07

Study locations

2 sites
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 22. Tumusifu JDD, Englebert A, Kabakuli A, AFRICA-NPWT Group, Buziza-Mbuku R, Schubert T, Tissingh E, Cornu O. Modified Delphi consensus recommendations for the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in orthopedic trauma and complex wounds in low- and middle-income countries: an African consensus study. Injury, 2026; JINJ-D-26-02123R1, accepted
  • Pearson N, Naylor PJ, Ashe MC, Fernandez M, Yoong SL, Wolfenden L. Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020 Oct 31;6(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00634-w. PubMed 33292770 ↗
  • Sousa F, Zhu M, Farlie MK, Haines T, Borrelli B, Carroll C, Mathews C, Ribeiro DC, Fritz JM, Underwood M, Foster NE, Lamb SE, Sanchez ZM, Malliaras P. Guidance for intervention fidelity in nondrug, nonsurgical trials: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Sep;185:111868. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111868. Epub 2025 Jun 13. PubMed 40517847 ↗
  • 18. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, Lancaster GA; PAFS Consensus Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355:i5239. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5239. 19. Mellor K, Albury C, Dutton SJ, Eldridge S, Hopewell S. Recommendations for progression criteria during external randomised pilot trial design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023;9(1):59. doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01291-5.
  • Fonkoue L, Tissingh EK, Marais LC, Malaba M, Abrha K, Ferguson J, Morgenstern M, Cornu O, Laubscher M, Buzisa Mbuku R, Galiwango GW, Botman M, Wojno J, Majigo MV, Martin C Jr, Harrison WJ, Schade AT, Marenah K, Nyamutora M, Namale PE, Mdingi V, McNally M. Management of fracture-related infection in low-resource settings in Africa: recommendations and guidelines from an international expert group. J Bone Jt Infect. 2026 Jul 9;11(4):401-411. doi: 10.5194/jbji-11-401-2026. eCollection 2026. PubMed 42445811 ↗
  • Govaert GAM, Kuehl R, Atkins BL, Trampuz A, Morgenstern M, Obremskey WT, Verhofstad MHJ, McNally MA, Metsemakers WJ; Fracture-Related Infection (FRI) Consensus Group. Diagnosing Fracture-Related Infection: Current Concepts and Recommendations. J Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jan;34(1):8-17. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001614. PubMed 31855973 ↗
  • Metsemakers WJ, Morgenstern M, McNally MA, Moriarty TF, McFadyen I, Scarborough M, Athanasou NA, Ochsner PE, Kuehl R, Raschke M, Borens O, Xie Z, Velkes S, Hungerer S, Kates SL, Zalavras C, Giannoudis PV, Richards RG, Verhofstad MHJ. Fracture-related infection: A consensus on definition from an international expert group. Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):505-510. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.040. Epub 2017 Aug 24. PubMed 28867644 ↗
  • 14. Ferreira N, Tsang Shao-Ting J, Jansen van Rensburg A, Venter R, Epstein GZ. Unexpected high prevalence of Gram-negative pathogens in fracture-related infection: is it time to consider extended Gram-negative cover antibiotic prophylaxis in open fractures?. SA Orthop. J. 2023 ;22(3):146-150. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1681-150X2023000300006&lng=en. https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2023/v22n3a5
  • 12. American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support: Student Course Manual. 10th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2018 13. Guidelines for infection control and prevention in anaesthesia in South Africa. South Afr J Anaesth and Analg 2021;27{4):1-55}. Doi/10.36303/SAJAA.2021.27.4.S1. https://journals.co.za/doi/10.36303/SAJAA.2021.27.4.S1?
  • Dorafshar AH, Franczyk M, Gottlieb LJ, Wroblewski KE, Lohman RF. A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum-assisted closure device. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):79-84. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c. PubMed 21712704 ↗
  • Webb LX, Dedmond B, Schlatterer D, Laverty D. The contaminated high-energy open fracture: a protocol to prevent and treat inflammatory mediator storm-induced soft-tissue compartment syndrome (IMSICS). J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(10 Spec No.):S82-6. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200600001-00019. PubMed 17003216 ↗
  • Chaput B, Garrido I, Eburdery H, Grolleau JL, Chavoin JP. Low-cost Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Using Wall Vacuum: A 15 Dollars by Day Alternative. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Jul 8;3(6):e418. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000347. eCollection 2015 Jun. PubMed 26180719 ↗
  • Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR; WOLLF collaborators. Five-year outcomes for patients sustaining severe fractures of the lower limb : mid-term results from the Wound management for Open Lower Limb Fracture (WOLLF) trial. Bone Joint J. 2022 May;104-B(5):633-639. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B5.BJJ-2021-1568.R2. PubMed 35491582 ↗
  • Costa ML, Achten J, Knight R, Bruce J, Dutton SJ, Madan J, Dritsaki M, Parsons N, Fernandez M, Grant R, Nanchahal J; WHIST Trial Collaborators. Effect of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Dressing on Deep Surgical Site Infection After Surgery for Lower Limb Fractures Associated With Major Trauma: The WHIST Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020 Feb 11;323(6):519-526. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0059. PubMed 32044942 ↗
  • Costa ML, Achten J, Bruce J, Davis S, Hennings S, Willett K, Petrou S, Jeffery S, Griffin D, Parker B, Masters J, Lamb SE, Tutton E, Parsons N. Negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings for adults with an open lower limb fracture: the WOLLF RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2018 Dec;22(73):1-162. doi: 10.3310/hta22730. PubMed 30573002 ↗
  • Jain R, Sinha PR, Pathak PK. Comparison of Indigenous Low Cost Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy and Standard Wound Therapy in Open Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Orthop Case Rep. 2026 Jan;16(1):421-428. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i01.6718. PubMed 41541432 ↗
  • Griffin M, Malahias M, Khan W, Hindocha S. Update on the management of open lower limb fractures. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:571-7. doi: 10.2174/1874325001206010571. Epub 2012 Nov 30. PubMed 23248730 ↗
  • Tissingh EK, Marais L, Loro A, Bose D, Paner NT, Ferguson J, Morgensten M, McNally M. Management of fracture-related infection in low resource settings: how applicable are the current consensus guidelines? EFORT Open Rev. 2022 May 31;7(6):422-432. doi: 10.1530/EOR-22-0031. PubMed 35638596 ↗
  • Craxford S, Vris A, Ahluwalia R, Saini A, Harrison WD, Graham S, Sharma H. Fracture related infection in open tibial fractures. J Orthop. 2024 Jan 30;51:98-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.01.010. eCollection 2024 May. PubMed 38357441 ↗
  • Zalavras CG, Patzakis MJ. Open fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003 May-Jun;11(3):212-9. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200305000-00008. PubMed 12828451 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De- indentified individual participant data will be shared with qualified reseachers upon reasonable resultats. Data sharing will occur in compliance with applicable ethical and regularitory requirements.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Clinical study report

Time frame: start date: After publication of the primary resultats End date: 12 months after publication

Access criteria: Qualified reseachers who provide a scientififcally valid proposal and agree to data use terms

Data sharing details ↗ · www.hpgrbukavu.org

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Start is estimated for Jan 2027; primary completion for Dec 2027, 11 months later.

Of 39 interventional studies with no phase under Tibial Fractures, half reached primary completion within 45 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 23 and three quarters within 80. This study's planned 11 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 20, 2026
First posted
Aug 27, 2026
StartEst.
Jan 1, 2027
Primary completionEst.
Dec 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Dec 2028
Last update
Aug 27, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 27, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07790991
Lead sponsor
Université Catholique de Bukavu
Responsible party
Tumusifu Manegabe Jean de Dieu (Medical Doctor, Université Catholique de Bukavu) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 27, 2026
Start date
Jan 1, 2027 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 27, 2026

Study contacts

Prof. Dr. Olivier Cornu
Contact
olivier.cornu@saintluc.uclouvain.be
+32475387566
Prof. Paul Budema
Contact
paulbdma@yahoo.fr
+243997698323
Englebert, Professor
study chair · CH UCL Mont Godinne- Namur/Belgique

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion