Prophylactic negative wound therapy in laparotomy wounds (PROPEL trial): randomized controlled trial

Does prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy prevent surgical site infection in abdominal surgery?

OBJECTIVE

To determine if prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) allows for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) in abdominal surgery.

METHOD

A non-systematic review assessing the evidence was conducted in 2020.

RESULTS

Retrospectve studies comparing patients with pNPWT with patients receiving standard wound dressing after abdominal surgery showed encouragning results in favour of pNPWT for reducing the incidence of SSIs, but randomised controlled trials have so far reported mixed results.

CONCLUSION

New randomised controlled trials including a sufficient number of patients at risk of SSIs are needed for confirming the results of non-interventional studies.

Prophylactic negative pressure wound dressings reduces wound complications following emergency laparotomies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Wound complications are a common cause of postoperative morbidity and incur significant healthcare costs. Recent studies have shown that negative pressure wound dressings reduce wound complication rates, particularly surgical site infections, after elective laparotomies. The clinical utility of prophylactic negative pressure wound dressings for closed emergency laparotomy incisions remains controversial. This meta-analysis investigated the rates of wound complications after emergency laparotomy when a negative pressure wound dressing was applied.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Registry, Web of Science, and Clinialtrials.gov databases were searched from January 1, 2005, to April 1, 2022. All studies comparing negative pressure wound dressings to standard dressings on closed emergency laparotomy incisions were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1,199 (negative pressure wound dressings: 566, standard dressing: 633) patients from 7 (prospective: 4, retrospective: 3) studies were identified. Overall, the surgical site infection (superficial/deep) rate was 13.6% (77/566) vs 25.1% (159/633) in the negative pressure wound dressing versus standard dressing groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.62). Wound breakdown (skin/fascial dehiscence) was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound dressing (7.7%) group compared to the standard dressing (16.9%) group (odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.72). The incidence of overall wound complications was significantly lower in the negative pressure wound dressing (15.9%) group compared to the standard dressing (30.4%) group (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.59). No significant differences were found in hospital length-of-stay and readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic negative pressure wound dressings for closed emergency laparotomy incisions were associated with a significant reduction in surgical site infections, wound breakdown, and overall wound complications, thus supporting its clinical use.

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.

Prospective study of surgical site infections post-open esophageal cancer surgery, and the impact of care bundles

SSIs represent common infection-related morbidity following major surgery. Modern care bundles have been established as prophylactic measures aimed at preventing SSI occurring postoperatively. SSI incidence and data on common culprit pathogens post-esophagectomy for cancer have not been previously reported. Patients (2013-2018) treated with curative intent were studied. SSI was defined as per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) definition. A care bundle pathway following the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for prevention of SSIs was introduced in 2013 and was audited quarterly. Risk factors and associations of SSIs were analyzed, as was the prevalence of isolated pathogens. Multivariable logistic regression examined independently predictive factors of SSIs and oncologic outcomes. Of 343 patients, 34 (9.9%) developed a postoperative SSI, with a median (range) of 8 (6-17). Quarterly audit carried out over 6 years showed no significant annual variance or trend. The most prevalent pathogen cultured was Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) in nine patients (32%) followed by Candida albicans (29%), Escherichia coli (14%), and Enterococcus faecium (11%). SSI was significantly associated with pneumonia (P = 0.001), respiratory failure (P = 0.014), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.004), anastomotic leak (P < 0.001), and in-hospital blood transfusions (P = 0.031). SSI did not impact the overall survival (P = 0.951). SSI rates can be maintained at less than 10% using strict care bundles and regular audit. The most common culprit pathogen is gram-positive MSSA representing 32% of cases. These data are novel and may represent a modern benchmark for SSI post-open esophagectomy for cancer. This study highlights the incidence and associations of SSI post-esophageal cancer surgery.

Surgical site infection prevention and management in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Immunocompromised patients are at higher risk of surgical site infection and wound complications. However, optimal management in the perioperative period is not well established. Present systematic review aims to analyse existing strategies and interventions to prevent and manage surgical site infections and other wound complications in immunocompromised patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Literature review shows that partial skin closure is effective to reduce SSI in this population. There is not sufficient evidence to definitively suggest in favour of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy. The use of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) in transplanted patient needing ad emergent or undeferrable abdominal surgical procedure must be carefully and multidisciplinary evaluated. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in transplanted patients needs to be assessed.

CONCLUSION

Strict adherence to SSI infection preventing bundles must be implemented worldwide especially in immunocompromised patients. Lastly, it is necessary to elaborate a more widely approved definition of immunocompromised state. Without such shared definition, it will be hard to elaborate the needed methodologically correct studies for this fragile population.

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy is associated with reduced surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy: A propensity matched-cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection contributes to a significant proportion of postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Surgical site infections cause significant patient burden, increase duration of stay, and have economic implications. Closed incision negative pressure therapy has been shown to reduce surgical site infection rates in patients undergoing elective laparotomy; however, there is limited evidence for their use in the emergency setting. This study aims to compare rates of surgical site infection between patients receiving closed incision negative pressure therapy and standard surgical dressing after emergency laparotomy through a propensity matched analysis.

METHODS

A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database at our center. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control criteria. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative morbidity and grade, duration of stay, 30-day mortality, and readmission rates. A propensity-score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio to mitigate for selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 1,484 patients were identified from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit data set, and propensity-score matching resulted in 2 equally matched cohorts with 237 patients in each arm. The rate of surgical site infection was significantly lower in the closed incision negative pressure therapy cohort (16.9% vs 33.8%, P < .001). There were no overall differences in 30-day morbidity, Clavien-Dindo grade, Comprehensive Complication Index severity, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and 30-day mortality between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic closed incision negative pressure therapy in emergency laparotomy patients is associated with a reduction in surgical site infection rates.

Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Therapy in General Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent an economic burden to healthcare systems. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for SSI prophylaxis remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for relevant studies. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the effectiveness of NPWT for prophylaxis of SSI rates in general abdominal surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of seroma and wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, and re-admission rates. The statistical analysis was performed with random effect models. Results: A total of 3,193 patients from 20 articles (six randomized controlled trials [RCT], three prospective, eight retrospective, and three ambispective studies) were analyzed. Negative pressure wound therapy was associated with decreased rate of SSIs compared with standard dressing in a pooled analysis of non-randomized studies and RCTs (0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 0.8; p < 0.001). This result, however, needs to be challenged because of a significant statistical heterogeneity of the included studies (I² = 71%; p < 0.01). A separate analysis of the six RCTs failed to confirm the superiority of NPWT (0.64; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.04; p = 0.07), also disclosing significant heterogeneity. The analysis of secondary outcomes was only possible in combination of randomized and non-randomized studies because of incomplete datasets in RCTs. Re-admission rates were lower after NPWT and no difference was observed for the incidence of seroma, wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions: Based on available evidence, the routine use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis after laparotomy in general abdominal surgery cannot be generally recommended.

Management of Complicated Ostomy Dehiscence: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

Stoma creation is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Despite improved surgical techniques, ostomy-related wound complications may prolong the recovery period and impair health-related quality of life. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), autolytic debridement agents, and silver dressings are often used for managing complex wound infection and dehiscence. These applications have the potential to increase patient comfort and accelerate recovery.

CASE

We report our experience in a 66 year old female who had a wound dehiscence involving the ostomy after robotic abdominoperineal resection. Her medical history was significant for a rectovaginal fistula which occurred after a low anterior resection for rectal cancer 5 years ago. Interventions for treatment of the dehiscence were use of NPWT, autolytic debriding agent, and silver dressing.

CONCLUSION

Combined use of these interventions for dehiscence of an ostomy can minimize patient discomfort and accelerate wound healing.