As I understand, The Clevland Clinic is currently conducting a clinical trial of the Blue Sky V1 NPWT vacuum. It is also my understanding that they may be comparing the two systems (KCI/Blue Sky) in this trial. As the results will soon be available, the answers to your arguments will be available for everyone's review.
As to current evidence of the efficacy of the Blue Sky dressing system and advantages of the Blue Sky therapy:
1. Hundreds of case studies document its efficacy. (You can e-mail me for these studies in Powerpoint format.)
2. The July/August issue of the WOCN Journal documents major problems with sponge dressings and granulating tissue.
3. The much lower cost of the Blue Sky therapy enables patients (with orders for NPWT) who were "unplaceable" in nursing facilities to ACTUALLY receive this therapy.
4. Major insurance companies are adding the V1 to their approval lists so quickly it would be foolish to post a list that would be outdated in 2 weeks.
5. Contrary to your assertion, the FDA has cleared the V1 as a machine that: "is indicated for patients who would benefit from a suction device particularly as the device may promote wound healing..."
Considering that most of your observations are anecdotal and seem (frankly) emotional, I doubt that any of this will convince you. It is my hope that the clinicians at the Clevland Clinic and the market as a whole will provide you with the experiential objectivity you are looking for.
Finally, your anecdotal approach to this discussion piqued my interest in your professional credentials. If I might offer you some advice you may want to update your signatory credentials on your March posting here. As of todays date, neither the AMA, nor the American College of Surgeons has ever heard of you.
As this is a KCI sponsored site I doubt this post will remain here long. If my assumption is true, I will tell you now that I enjoyed our brief discussion.AMA SearchAmerican College of Surgeons