Vacuum closure as a skin-graft dressing: a comparison against conventional dressing

Prevalence of surgical site wound infection after spine surgery in nasal colonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A meta-analysis

The purpose of the meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the prevalence of surgical site infection (SSI) after spine surgery (SS) in nasal colonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The results of this meta-analysis were analysed, and the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using dichotomous or contentious random- or fixed-effect models. For the current meta-analysis, 14 examinations spanning from 2014 to 2022 were included, encompassing 18 410 people who were tested for nasal colonization after SS. MRSA-positive had a significantly higher SSI (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.48-5.37, p < 0.001) compared with MRSA-negative in SS subjects. However, no significant difference was found between methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus aureus negative (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.32-2.79, p = 0.91), and Staphylococcus aureus positive and negative (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.26-17.41, p = 0.48) in SS subjects. The examined data revealed that MRSA colonization had a significant effect on SSI; however, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus aureus had no significant effect on SSI in SS subjects. However, given that some comparisons included a small number of chosen studies, attention should be given to their values.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Eleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I² = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I² = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these. Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I² = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I² = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I² = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I² = 34%; two studies; 632 participants). Cost-effectiveness Six economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs  than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.

Safeguarding Skin Grafts: An Evidence-Based Summary of Fixation Techniques

BACKGROUND

Effective skin graft fixation is vital in preventing sheering forces, seroma, and hematoma from compromising graft take. Yet, selecting the ideal technique for securing skin grafts remains a contentious subject, with significant variation in practice existing between surgeons. There is, therefore, benefit to be derived from assessing the literature for evidence-based recommendations to guide the decision-making process.

METHODS

A search of Medline and Embase was performed using appropriate key terms, yielding 419 articles. Reference lists were analyzed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were composed. Level I to III studies, as defined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that compared skin graft fixation methods were analyzed. Rayyan QCRI was used for abstract and title screening. After full text screening, 41 studies were included for qualitative analysis. All included randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (ROB2) tool.

RESULTS

We identified 4 groups of fixation technique: "tie-over bolster" (TOB), "no TOB," "adhesive glues," and "negative pressure wound therapy" (NPWT). Twelve studies compared TOB with no TOB, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Sixteen studies compared adhesive glues with traditional methods, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Thirteen studies compared NPWT with traditional methods, with enhanced graft take demonstrated. Risk of bias was deemed low in 1 of 13 RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, only NPWT is associated with enhanced graft take. However, there is a scarcity of robust level I evidence comparing different fixation techniques, meaning that strong recommendations cannot be made. We propose examples of hypothesis-driven RCTs, in predetermined clinical settings, based on the theoretical benefits of the techniques that would add value to clinical practice.

Negative-pressure wound therapy in skin grafts: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Although skin grafts are widely used in reconstruction of large skin defect and complex wounds, many factors lead to suboptimal graft take. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) reportedly increases the graft take rates when added to skin grafting, but a summary analysis of the data of randomized controlled trials has yet to be performed. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of NPWT and non-NPWT for patients with skin grafts.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI for relevant trials based on predetermined eligibility criteria from database establishment to February 2020. Two reviewers screened citations and extracted data independently. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook, whereas statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi-square tests and I2 statistics. Review Manager 5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials with 488 patients who underwent NPWT or non-NPWT were included. Compared with non-NPWT, NPWT yielded an improved the percentage of graft take, a reduction in days from grafting to discharge, with lower relative risk of re-operation, and no increased relative risk of adverse event. Further, the subgroup analysis showed an improved the percentage of graft take in negative pressure of 80 mmHg, and no improved the percentage of graft take in negative pressure of 125 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

NPWT is more effective than non-NPWT for the integration of skin grafts, and the negative pressure of 80 mmHg can be recommended. Data on adverse events and negative pressure are, however, limited. A better understanding of complications after NPWT and the ideal negative pressure for the integration of skin grafts is imperative.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this third update, we added 15 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three new economic studies, resulting in a total of 44 RCTs (7447 included participants) and five economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in the context of a wide range of surgeries including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. Economic studies assessed NPWT in orthopaedic, obstetric and general surgical settings. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Four studies (2107 participants) reported mortality. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (2.3%) compared with standard dressings (2.7%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.47; I² = 0%). Thirty-nine studies reported SSI; 31 of these (6204 participants), were included in meta-analysis. There is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) that NPWT probably results in fewer SSI (8.8% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (13.0% of participants) after surgery; RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80 ; I² = 23%). Eighteen studies reported dehiscence; 14 of these (3809 participants) were included in meta-analysis. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of dehiscence after surgery for NPWT (5.3% of participants) compared with standard dressings (6.2% of participants) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence showing no clear difference between NPWT and standard treatment for the outcomes of reoperation and incidence of seroma. For reoperation, the RR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; I² = 13%; 12 trials; 3523 participants); for seroma, the RR was 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; I² = 0%; seven trials; 729 participants). The effect of NPWT on occurrence of haematoma or skin blisters is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence); for haematoma, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.59; I² = 0%; nine trials; 1202 participants) and for blisters the RR was 2.64 (95% CI 0.65 to 10.68; I² = 69%; seven trials; 796 participants). The overall effect of NPWT on pain is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence from seven trials (2218 participants) which reported disparate measures of pain); but moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably little difference between the groups in pain after three or six months following surgery for lower limb fracture (one trial, 1549 participants). There is also moderate-certainty evidence for women undergoing caesarean sections (one trial, 876 participants) and people having surgery for lower limb fractures (one trial, 1549 participants) that there is probably little difference in quality of life scores at 30 days or 3 or 6 months, respectively. Cost-effectiveness Five economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials included in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in four indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years for treatment groups and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the grade of the evidence varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People experiencing primary wound closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSI than people treated with standard dressings (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference in number of deaths or wound dehiscence between people treated with NPWT and standard dressings (low-certainty evidence). There are also no clear differences in secondary outcomes where all evidence was low or very low-certainty. In caesarean section in obese women and surgery for lower limb fracture, there is probably little difference in quality of life scores (moderate-certainty evidence). Most evidence on pain is very low-certainty, but there is probably no difference in pain between NPWT and standard dressings after surgery for lower limb fracture (moderate-certainty evidence). Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this third update, we added 15 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three new economic studies, resulting in a total of 44 RCTs (7447 included participants) and five economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in the context of a wide range of surgeries including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. Economic studies assessed NPWT in orthopaedic, obstetric and general surgical settings. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Four studies (2107 participants) reported mortality. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (2.3%) compared with standard dressings (2.7%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.47; I² = 0%). Thirty-nine studies reported SSI; 31 of these (6204 participants), were included in meta-analysis. There is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) that NPWT probably results in fewer SSI (8.8% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (13.0% of participants) after surgery; RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80 ; I² = 23%). Eighteen studies reported dehiscence; 14 of these (3809 participants) were included in meta-analysis. There is low-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision) showing no clear difference in the risk of dehiscence after surgery for NPWT (5.3% of participants) compared with standard dressings (6.2% of participants) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13; I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence showing no clear difference between NPWT and standard treatment for the outcomes of reoperation and incidence of seroma. For reoperation, the RR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; I² = 13%; 12 trials; 3523 participants); for seroma, the RR was 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; I² = 0%; seven trials; 729 participants). The effect of NPWT on occurrence of haematoma or skin blisters is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence); for haematoma, the RR was 0.67 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.59; I² = 0%; nine trials; 1202 participants) and for blisters the RR was 2.64 (95% CI 0.65 to 10.68; I² = 69%; seven trials; 796 participants). The overall effect of NPWT on pain is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence from seven trials (2218 participants) which reported disparate measures of pain); but moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably little difference between the groups in pain after three or six months following surgery for lower limb fracture (one trial, 1549 participants). There is also moderate-certainty evidence for women undergoing caesarean sections (one trial, 876 participants) and people having surgery for lower limb fractures (one trial, 1549 participants) that there is probably little difference in quality of life scores at 30 days or 3 or 6 months, respectively. Cost-effectiveness Five economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials included in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in four indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years for treatment groups and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the grade of the evidence varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People experiencing primary wound closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSI than people treated with standard dressings (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference in number of deaths or wound dehiscence between people treated with NPWT and standard dressings (low-certainty evidence). There are also no clear differences in secondary outcomes where all evidence was low or very low-certainty. In caesarean section in obese women and surgery for lower limb fracture, there is probably little difference in quality of life scores (moderate-certainty evidence). Most evidence on pain is very low-certainty, but there is probably no difference in pain between NPWT and standard dressings after surgery for lower limb fracture (moderate-certainty evidence). Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.

Pilot Study to Assess Safety and Usability of the Kyron NPWT System

There is an evident need for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) systems specifically designed for use in resource-constrained settings to aid in the treatment of open wounds.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.

Feasibility and Advantages of Full Thickness Skin Graft from the Anterolateral Thigh

BACKGROUND

Full thickness skin graft (FTSG) gives better outcomes than split thickness skin graft (STSG), but it has the drawback of limited donor sites. Anterolateral thigh (ALT), a popular donor site of STSG, is also a popular donor site of perforator flaps. This area has the advantage of large flap size available with primary closure. Based on this we harvested FTSG instead of STSG from the ALT.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 10 cases of FTSG from the ALT, with the recipient site of foot in 3, ankle in 2, lower leg in 2, forearm in 2, and wrist in 1 patient. In all cases elliptical full thickness skin was harvested from the ALT, and the donor site was closed primarily. The skin was defatted and placed onto the defect with vacuum-assisted closure (VAC). The skin size ranged 7-30 cm in length and 3-12 cm in width. Mean follow up period was 7 months (range, 3-13).

RESULTS

FTSG from the ALT provided durable wound coverage, with excellent color and texture matching. Partial (< 20%) graft failure was observed in 1 case, but no additional surgery was necessary. No patient reported donor site pain at postoperative 2 weeks. No donor site complications were encountered. No patient complained a feeling of tension in the thigh at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

FTSG from the ALT is feasible with the aid of VAC. Considering the skin quality, large skin size available, early pain relief, and little donor site morbidity, the ALT should be revisited as a donor site of FTSG.

Wound Healing Devices Brief Vignettes

Significance: The demand for wound care therapies is increasing. New wound care products and devices are marketed at a dizzying rate. Practitioners must make informed decisions about the use of medical devices for wound healing therapy. This paper provides updated evidence and recommendations based on a review of recent publications. Recent Advances: The published literature on the use of medical devices for wound healing continues to support the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, negative pressure wound therapy, and most recently electrical stimulation. Critical Issue: To inform wound healing practitioners of the evidence for or against the use of medical devices for wound healing. This information will aid the practitioner in deciding which technology should be accepted or rejected for clinical use. Future Directions: To produce high quality, randomized controlled trials or acquire outcome-based registry databases to further test and improve the knowledge base as it relates to the use of medical devices in wound care.

Negative pressure wound therapy for skin grafts and surgical wounds healing by primary intention

BACKGROUND

Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broadening with a range of systems now available on the market, including those designed for use on clean, closed incisions and skin grafts. Reviews have concluded that the evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, however, it is a rapidly evolving therapy. Consequently, an updated systematic review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds expected to heal by primary intention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NPWT on surgical wounds (primary closure, skin grafting or flap closure) that are expected to heal by primary intention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 28 January 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, issue 12); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2011 to January 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 24 January 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2011 to January 2014 Week 44); and EBSCO CINAHL (2011 to January 2014). We conducted a separate search to identify economic evaluations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they allocated patients to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with a different type of NPWT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their quality. This was done by three review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

In this first update, we included an additional four trials, taking the total number of trials included to nine (785 participants). Three trials involved skin grafts, four included orthopaedic patients and two included general surgery and trauma surgery patients; all the included trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more of the quality indicators we assessed. Seven trials compared NPWT with a standard dressing (two of these were 'home-made' NPWT devices), one trial compared one 'home-made' NPWT with a commercially available device. In trials where the individual was the unit of randomisation, there were no differences in the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI); wound dehiscence, re-operation (in incisional wounds); seroma/haematoma; or failed skin grafts. Lower re-operation rates were observed among skin graft patients in the 'home-made' NPWT group (7/65; 10.8%) compared to the standard dressing group (17/66; 25.8%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92). The mean cost to supply equipment for VAC® therapy was USD 96.51/day compared to USD 4.22/day for one of the 'home-made' devices (P value 0.01); labour costs for dressing changes were similar for both treatments. Pain intensity score was also reported to be lower in the 'home-made' group when compared with the VAC® group (P value 0.02). One of the trials in orthopaedic patients was stopped early because of a high incidence of fracture blisters in the NPWT group (15/24; 62.5%) compared with the standard dressing group (3/36; 8.3%) (RR 7.50; 95% CI 2.43 to 23.14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for reducing SSI and wound dehiscence remains unclear, as does the effect of NPWT on time to complete healing. Rates of graft loss may be lower when NPWT is used, but hospital-designed and built products are as effective in this area as commercial applications. There are clear cost benefits when non-commercial systems are used to create the negative pressure required for wound therapy, with no evidence of a negative effect on clinical outcome. In one study, pain levels were also rated lower when a 'home-made' system was compared with a commercial counterpart. The high incidence of blisters occurring when NPWT is used following orthopaedic surgery suggests that the therapy should be limited until safety in this population is established. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT, there is an urgent need for suitably powered, high-quality trials to evaluate the effects of the newer NPWT products that are designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should focus initially on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.