The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Two Different Closed Incision Negative Pressure Systems in Breast Surgery and Implications to Cost of Care

Background

Surgical site complication (SSC) rates in breast surgery have been reported between 2.25% and 53%. Use of incision management may help reduce the risk of SSCs. The potential of 2 closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) systems to mitigate surgical site complications (SSC) and surgical site infections (SSI) in breast surgery were assessed.

Methods

A systematic literature review for breast surgery studies was conducted comparing ciNPT use against standard of care (SOC). SSC, SSI, and dehiscence rates were examined. SSCs were defined as all surgical site complications including SSI, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and necrosis. Risk ratios and random effects models were used to assess the effect of ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) and ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) compared with SOC.

Results

Eight articles were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in SSC rates (P = .307) or SSI rates (P = .453) between ciNPT-MLA and SOC were observed. ciNPT-MLA use was associated with a reduction in dehiscence compared with SOC (RR = 0.499, 95% CI = 0.303, 0.822; P = .006). A significant reduction in SSC rates (RR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.271, 0.917; P = .025) was observed with ciNPT-F use. Similarly, dehiscence rate reduction was associated with ciNPT-F use (RR = 0.349, 95% CI= 0.168, 0.725; P = .005). A trend towards reduction of SSI rates with ciNPT-F use compared with SOC was also noted (P = .053).

Conclusions

Compared with SOC, ciNPT-MLA significantly reduced rates of dehiscence, while ciNPT-F use resulted in significantly reduced SSC and dehiscence rates with a trend toward reducing SSI.

Surgical site infection outcomes of two different closed incision negative pressure therapy systems in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) system use compared with standard of care dressings (SOC) on surgical site infection (SSI) in cardiac surgery was assessed. A systematic literature review was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) and random effects models were used to assess ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) or multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) versus SOC. Health economic models were developed to assess potential per patient cost savings. Eight studies were included in the ciNPT-F analysis and four studies were included in the ciNPT-MLA analysis. For ciNPT-F, a significant reduction in SSI incidence was observed (RR: 0.507, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.362, 0.709; p < 0.001). High-risk study analysis reported significant SSI reduction with ciNPT-F use (RR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.205, 0.741; p = 0.004). For ciNPT-MLA, no significant difference in SSI rates were reported (RR: 0.672, 95% CI: 0.276, 1.635; p = 0.381). Health economic modelling estimated a per patient cost savings of $554 for all patients and $3242 for the high-risk population with ciNPT-F use. Health economic modelling suggests ciNPT-F may provide a cost-effective solution for sternotomy incision management. However, limited high-quality literature exists. More high-quality evidence is needed to fully assess the impact of ciNPT use following cardiac surgery.

Prophylactic use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site occurrences in general surgery: Consensus document

BACKGROUND

Surgical site occurrences pose a threat to patient health, potentially resulting in significant increases in health care spending caused by using additional resources. The objective of this study was to reach a consensus among a group of experts in incisional negative pressure wound therapy to determine the indications for using this type of treatment prophylactically and to analyze the associated risk factors of surgical site occurrences in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A group of experts in incisional negative pressure wound therapy from Spain and Portugal was formed among general surgery specialists who frequently perform colorectal, esophagogastric, or abdominal wall surgery. The Coordinating Committee performed a bibliographic search to identify the most relevant publications and to create a summary table to serve as a decision-making protocol regarding the use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy based on factors related to the patient and type of procedure.

RESULTS

The patient risk factors associated with surgical site occurrence development such as age, immunosuppression, anticoagulation, hypoalbuminemia, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diabetes, obesity, and malnutrition were analyzed. For surgical procedure factors, surgical time, repeated surgeries, organ transplantation, need for blood transfusion, complex abdominal wall reconstruction, surgery at a contaminated site, open abdomen closure, emergency surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, this consensus has been achieved on a tailored set of recommendations on patient and surgical aspects that should be considered to reduce the risk of surgical site occurrences with the use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy, particularly in areas where the evidence base is controversial or lacking.

Negative pressure wound management in perineal wound status post abdominoperineal resection and extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

Recent evidence-based publications disclosed that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the incidence rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and length of stay (LOS) compared with conventional drainage in patient status post abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE).

METHODS

Data sources: Eligible randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective studies published before January 2023 were retrieved from databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase).

STUDY SELECTION

(a) The study involved patients undergoing ELAPE or APR with postoperative NPWT; (b) the study compared NWPT with conventional drainage and reported at least one outcome of interest (i.e., SSI); and (c) the study provided adequate information to calculate the effect estimated for meta-analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

We calculated the odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The measure outcomes included surgical site infection(SSI) and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Eight articles, involving 547 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to conventional drainage, NPWT was associated with a significantly lower SSI rate (fixed effect, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.45; I² = 0%) in eight studies and 547 patients. Besides, NPWT was associated with a shorter LOS (fixed effect, MD - 2.00; CI - 2.60 to - 1.39; I² = 0%) than conventional drainage in three studies and 305 patients. In a trial sequential analysis, the cumulative number of patients in the analyses of both outcomes exceeded the required information size and surpassed the significance boundary in favor of NPWT, suggesting conclusive results.

CONCLUSION

NPWT is superior to conventional drainage in both SSI rate and LOS, and the statistical power of SSI and LOS are confirmed by trial sequential analysis.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

[Reconstruction of oncological defects of the perianal region]

In addition to the progressive development of surgical oncological techniques for malignant tumors of the rectum, anal canal and vulva, reconstructive procedures after oncological interventions in the perianal region represent a cornerstone in the postoperative quality of life of patients. Modern treatment modalities for rectal cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increase the survival rate and simultaneously reduce the risk of local recurrence to 5-10%, especially by cylindrical extralevatory extirpation of the rectum. The price for increased surgical radicality and improved oncological safety is the acceptance of larger tissue defects. Simple suture closure of perineal wounds often does not primarily heal, resulting in wound dehiscence, surgical site infections and formation of chronic fistulas and sinuses. The interdisciplinary one-stage or two-stage reconstruction of the perianal region with well-vascularized tissue has proven to be a reliable procedure to prevent or control such complications.

Continuous Negative Pressure Drainage with Intermittent Irrigation Leaded to a Risk Reduction of Perineal Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose

High rate of perineal surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication following abdominoperineal resection (APR), especially for extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of continuous negative pressure drainage combined with intermittent irrigation (CNPDCII) in the presacral space on the perineal SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE for low rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods

The clinical data of 99 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic ELAPE surgery were retrospectively analyzed. Among the 99 patients, 46 patients received CNPDCII and 53 patients received conventional drainage in the presacral space after ELAPE. Self-made irrigation drainage tube: took a silicone drainage tube, cut 3 side holes at every 2cm intervals at the front end, and fixed a flexible tube of an intravenous needle at the front end of the silicone drainage tube. The conventional drainage tube or self-made irrigation drainage tube was placed in the presacral space and poked out from the inside of the ischial tuberosity. The incidence of SSI and other perioperative indicators between the two groups was compared within 30 days after surgery.

Results

There was no statistical difference in clinicopathological features between the two groups of patients (p>0.05). A statistically lower rate of SSI was found in CNPDCII group (17.4%, 8/46) than the conventional drainage group (35.8%, 19/53). The drainage tube retention time (7.8±1.2 d VS 9.4±1.6 d) and the postoperative hospital stay (9.7±1.4 d VS 11.9±2.3 d) in CNPDCII group were significantly shortened than the conventional drainage group. There was no statistical difference in operating theatre time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that CNPDCII was an independent protective factor for SSI after ELAPE.

Conclusion

CNPDCII can effectively reduce the incidence of SSI following laparoscopic ELAPE, which is simple, safe and effective.

Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery: a nationwide cross-sectional survey

Our objective was to determine current practice in Switzerland regarding the use of pNPWT in abdominal surgery. An online survey was carried out to evaluate the use of pNPWT among abdominal surgeons in Switzerland. One hundred and ten participants replied to the survey from 16.12.2019 to 15.01.2020. Eleven were excluded, leaving 99 responders for analysis. Seventy participants (70.7%) were using pNPWT, 3 (3%) have stopped using it and 26 (26.3%) have never used it. pNPWT was used on midline laparotomy by 63 responders (90%), closed stoma wounds by 21 (30%), closed perineal wounds by 20 (28.6%), Pfannenstiel incisions by 18 (23.7%), groin incisions by 16 (22.9%), subcostal incisions by 13 (18.6%), Mc Burney incisions by 3 (4.3%) and other incisions by 18 (25.7%). Forty-eight participants (68.6%) used pNPWT on less than 10% of patients, 14 (20%) on 10–25% of patients, six (8.6%) on 25–50% of patients and two (2.9%) on 75–100% of patients. Suggestions for improvement to pNPWT were: better sealing, recyclable system, better adaptation to the perineum, smaller device, reduced cost and possibility to check the surgical wound through the dressing. In conclusion, pNPWT is widely used among Swiss surgeons, mostly on midline incisions. However, most of them apply pNPWT on a small proportion of patients only. Suggestions for improvement were a better sealing for complex wounds, reduced cost and possibility to check the wound during the therapy.