Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Use to Decrease Surgical Nosocomial Events in Colorectal Resections (NEPTUNE): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Wounds in Patients with Lower Intestinal Perforations

Objectives

Laparotomy for lower intestinal perforation is associated with a high incidence of surgical site infections. This study aimed to assess whether incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) could reduce the incidence of these infections and wound dehiscence in patients with lower intestinal perforation.

Methods

This single-center prospective study was conducted between September 2019 and July 2022. In the therapy group, wounds were closed with subcuticular sutures, and iNPWT was applied at -120 mmHg for 5 days. A total of 10 days of iNPWT was employed. These patients were compared with a historical control group. The iNPWT group (Group A) comprised 22 patients.The historical control group (Group B) had 65 patients. Table outlines patient characteristics and compares the two study groups.

Results

Patient characteristics were demographically similar. The incidence of surgical site infections was lower in the therapy group than in the control group (9.1% vs. 52.3%, p < 0.001). Wound dehiscence was not observed in the therapy group but was noted in three patients (4.6%) in the control group. In univariate and multivariate analysis, an application of the therapy device was associated with reduced incidence of surgical site infections (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

Conclusions

The application of iNPWT in patients with lower intestinal perforation was associated with reduced surgical site infections.

Post-operative nursing activities to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries: A scoping review

AIMS

To identify postoperative interventions and quality improvement initiatives used to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries, the types of activities nurses undertake in these interventions/initiatives and how these activities align with nurses' scope of practice.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Three health databases were searched, and backward and forward citation searching occurred in April 2022. Research and quality improvement initiatives included focussed on adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery, from 2010 onwards. Data were extracted about study characteristics, nursing activities and outcomes. The 'Dimensions of the scope of nursing practice' framework was used to classify nursing activities and then the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework was used to synthesise the review findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. These studies often reported negative wound pressure therapy and surgical site infection bundle interventions/initiatives. Nurses' scope of practice was most frequently 'Technical procedure and delegated medical care' meaning nurses frequently acted under doctors' orders, with the most common delegated activity being dressing removal.

CONCLUSION

The full extent of possible interventions nurses could undertake independently in the postoperative period requires further exploration to improve wound outcomes and capitalise on nurses' professional role.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Nurses' role in preventing postoperative wound complications is unclear, which may inhibit their ability to influence postoperative outcomes. In the postoperative period, nurses undertake technical activities, under doctors' orders to prevent wound infections. For practice, nurses need to upkeep and audit their technical skills. New avenues for researchers include exploration of independent activities for postoperative nurses and the outcomes of these activities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

There may be opportunities to broaden nurses' scope of practice to act more autonomously to prevent wound complication.

REPORTING METHOD

Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A health consumer interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript.

Closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy reduces superficial surgical site infections after open colon surgery: an NSQIP Colectomy Study

BACKGROUND

The use of closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) has increased in the last decade across surgical fields, including colectomy.

AIM

To compare postoperative outcomes associated with use of iNPWT following open colectomy from a large national database.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent operations from 2015 to 2020 was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Targeted Colectomy Database. Intraoperative placement of iNPWT was identified in patients undergoing open abdominal operations with closure of all wound layers including skin. Propensity score matching was performed to define a control group who underwent closure of all wound layers without iNPWT. Patients were matched in a 1:4 (iNPWT vs control) ratio and postoperative rates of superficial, deep and organ-space surgical site infection (SSI), wound disruption, and readmission.

FINDINGS

A matched cohort of 1884 was selected. Patients with iNPWT had longer median operative time (170 (interquartile range: 129-232) vs 161 (114-226) min; P<0.05). Compared to patients without iNPWT, patients with iNPWT experienced a lower rate of 30-day superficial incisional SSI (3% vs 7%; P<0.05) and readmissions (10% vs 14%; P<0.05). iNPWT did not decrease risk of deep SSI, organ-space SSI, or wound disruption.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a slightly increased operative time, utilization of iNPWT in open colectomy is associated with lower odds of superficial SSI and 30-day readmission. This suggests that iNPWT should be routinely utilized in open colon surgery to improve patient outcomes.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Closed Colorectal Surgical Incisions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The utilization of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in lowering the incidence of infections in closed colorectal surgical incisions has not been thoroughly established, and recent trials have had conflicting results. This meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the findings of available trial data and carefully evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention in colorectal surgery. The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were combed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared negative pressure wound therapy to standard dressing in closed wounds of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. The incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of seroma and hematoma. The trial results were represented as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a fixed-effects model was used. Nine studies found eligible were included, and the pooled results revealed that negative pressure wound therapy significantly reduced the incidence of surgical site infections (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.93; P= 0.02). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in seroma (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.95; P = 0.04) and hematoma (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.96; P = 0.04). The use of negative pressure wound therapy for primarily closed incisions has been increasing, and our results indicate that it is superior to standard surgical dressings in preventing surgical site infections and other wound complications in colorectal surgeries.

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site infection: an up-to-date meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

The evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and ambiguous. Implementation in daily practice is impaired by inconsistent recommendations in current international guidelines and published meta-analyses. More recently, multiple new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We aimed to provide an overview of all meta-analyses and their characteristics; to conduct a new and up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment; and to explore the additive value of new RCTs with a trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to October 24, 2022. We identified existing meta-analyses covering all surgical specialties and RCTs studying the effect of iNPWT compared with standard dressings in all types of surgery on the incidence of SSI, wound dehiscence, reoperation, seroma, hematoma, mortality, readmission rate, skin blistering, skin necrosis, pain, and adverse effects of the intervention. We calculated relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We assessed publication bias with a comparison-adjusted funnel plot. TSA was used to assess the risk of random error. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) tool and GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312995.

Findings

We identified eight previously published general meta-analyses investigating iNPWT and compared their results to present meta-analysis. For the updated systematic review, 57 RCTs with 13,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis for SSI, yielding a RR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.76, I2 = 21%) for iNPWT compared with standard dressing. Certainty of evidence was high. Compared with previous meta-analyses, the RR stabilised, and the confidence interval narrowed. In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, confirming the robustness of the summary effect estimate from the meta-analysis.

Interpretation

In this up-to-date meta-analysis, GRADE assessment shows high-certainty evidence that iNPWT is effective in reducing SSI, and uncertainty is less than in previous meta-analyses. TSA indicated that further trials are unlikely to change the effect estimate for the outcome SSI; therefore, if future research is to be conducted on iNPWT, it is crucial to consider what the findings will contribute to the existing robust evidence.

Funding

Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.

Effectiveness of 3-Day Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Closed Abdominal Incisions in the Prevention of Wound Complications: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of negative pressure wound therapy of closed abdominal incisions on wound complications.

BACKGROUND

Surgical wound complications including surgical site infection complicating open abdominal operations are a burden on the economy. The outcomes of SSI include prolonged hospital stays, adjuvant treatment delay, and incisional hernias leading to a decrease in the quality of life. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy has recently been tried with promising results.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial involving 140 patients post-laparotomy with primary wound closure was divided into 2 groups (70 patients each). For the first group, NPWT dressings were applied for the first 3 days and then conventional dressings for 4 days after. For the second group, conventional dressings were applied for 7 days. Patients were followed up for SSI, seroma, wound dehiscence, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

pNPWT was associated with a significantly lower rate of SSI development compared with gauze dressings (3/70 vs. 17/70) (p = 0.001). It also had a significant effect on lowering the incidence of seroma (0/70 vs. 7/70) (p = 0.007) and delayed wound healing (0/70 vs. 8/70) (p = 0.006) and on decreasing days of hospital stay (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8) (p <0.00001). No significant difference was observed with regard to hematoma (0/70 vs. 1/70) (p = 0.5) or wound dehiscence (0/70 vs. 2/70) (p = 0.5). No burst abdomens or NPWT complications were recorded in our study.

CONCLUSION

Three-day NPWT applied to primarily closed incisions is effective in reducing the incidence of SSI, seroma, and delayed wound healing in abdominal operations compared to conventional gauze dressings.

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.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy to Reduce Surgical Site Infection in High-Risk Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite institutional perioperative bundles and national infection prevention guidelines, surgical site infection (SSI) after a major abdominal operation remains a significant source of morbidity. Negative pressure therapy (NPT) has revolutionized care for open wounds but the role of closed incision NPT (ciNPT) remains unclear.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial evaluating SSI after major elective colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01905397). Patients were randomized to receive conventional wound care vs ciNPT (Prevena Incision Management System, 3M Health Care, San Antonio, TX). The primary endpoint was postoperative incisional SSI. SSI incidence was evaluated at inpatient days 4 or 5 and again at postoperative day 30. With 144 patients studied, the estimated power was 85% for detecting a difference in SSIs between 17% and 5% (conventional vs ciNPT; 1-sided α = 0.1). Secondary endpoints included SSI type, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables between treatments; similarly, chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant, except in the primary comparison of incisional and organ SSIs.

RESULTS

During the 2013 to 2021 time period, 164 patients were randomized, and of those, 138 were evaluable (ciNPT n = 63; conventional n = 75). Incisional SSIs occurred in 9 (14%) patients in the ciNPT group and 13 (17%) patients in the conventional group (p = 0.31). Organ or space SSIs occurred in 7 (11%) patients in the ciNPT group and 10 (13%) in the conventional therapy group (p = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, incidence of incisional SSIs between ciNPT and conventional wound therapy was not statistically significant. Future trials should focus on patient populations undergoing specific procedures types that have the highest risk for SSI.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy versus Standard of Care in Reduction of Surgical Site Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been utilized to help manage closed incisions across many surgical specialties. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of ciNPT on postsurgical and health economic outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and QUOSA was performed for publications written in English, comparing ciNPT to standard-of-care dressings between January 2005 and August 2021. Study participant characteristics, surgical procedure, dressings used, treatment duration, postsurgical outcomes, and follow-up data were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Risk ratios summarized dichotomous outcomes. Difference in means or standardized difference in means was used to assess continuous variables reported on the same scale or outcomes reported on different scales/measurement instruments.

Results

The literature search identified 84 studies for analysis. Significant reductions in surgical site complication (SSC), surgical site infection (SSI), superficial SSI, deep SSI, seroma, dehiscence, skin necrosis, and prolonged incisional drainage were associated with ciNPT use (P < 0.05). Reduced readmissions and reoperations were significant in favor of ciNPT (P < 0.05). Patients receiving ciNPT had a 0.9-day shorter hospital stay (P < 0.0001). Differences in postoperative pain scores and reported amounts of opioid usage were significant in favor of ciNPT use (P < 0.05). Scar evaluations demonstrated improved scarring in favor of ciNPT (P < 0.05).

Discussion

For these meta-analyses, ciNPT use was associated with statistically significant reduction in SSCs, SSIs, seroma, dehiscence, and skin necrosis incidence. Reduced readmissions, reoperation, length of hospital stay, decreased pain scores and opioid use, and improved scarring were also observed in ciNPT patients.

Effect of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Surgical Site Infections in High-Risk Reoperative Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal resections have relatively high rates of surgical site infections causing significant morbidity. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was introduced to improve wound healing of closed surgical incisions and to prevent surgical site infections.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of incisional NPWT on superficial surgical site infections in high-risk, open, reoperative colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

This was a single-center randomized controlled trial conducted between July 2015-October 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to incisional negative pressure wound therapy or standard gauze dressing with a 1:1 ratio. A total of 298 patients were included.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at the colorectal surgery department of a tertiary-level hospital.

PATIENTS

This study included patients older than 18 years who underwent elective reoperative open colorectal resections. Patients were excluded who had open surgery within the past 3 months, who had active surgical site infection, and who underwent laparoscopic procedures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was superficial surgical site infection within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were deep and organ-space surgical site infections within 7 days and 30 days, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were included in each arm. The mean age was 51 years, and 49.5% were women. Demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and preoperative albumin levels were comparable between the groups. Overall, most surgeries were performed for IBD, and 77% of the patients had an ostomy fashioned during the surgery. No significant difference was found between the groups in 30-day superficial surgical site infection rate (14.1% in control versus 9.4% in incisional negative pressure wound therapy; p = 0.28). Deep and organ-space surgical site infections rates at 7 and 30 days were also comparable between the groups. Postoperative length of stay and complication rates (Clavien-Dindo grade) were also comparable between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

The patient population included in the trial consisted of a selected group of high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was not associated with reduced superficial surgical site infection or overall complication rates in patients undergoing high-risk reoperative colorectal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B956 .

EFECTO DE LA TERAPIA DE HERIDA INSICIONAL CON PRESIN NEGATIVA EN INFECCIONES DEL SITIO QUIRRGICO EN CIRUGA COLORRECTAL REOPERATORIA DE ALTO RIESGO UN ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIZADO

ANTECEDENTES:Las resecciones colorrectales tienen tasas relativamente altas de infecciones del sitio quirúrgico que causan una morbilidad significativa. La terapia de heridas incisionales con presión negativa se introdujo para mejorar la cicatrización de las heridas de incisiones quirúrgicas cerradas y para prevenir infecciones del sitio quirúrgico.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este ensayo controlado y aleatorizado fue investigar el efecto de la terapia de herida incisional con presión negativa en infecciones superficiales del sitio quirúrgico en cirugía colorrectal re operatoria, abierta y de alto riesgo.DISEÑO:Ensayo controlado y aleatorizado de un solo centro entre julio de 2015 y octubre de 2020. Los pacientes fueron aleatorizados para recibir tratamiento para heridas incisionales con presión negativa o vendaje de gasa estándar en una proporción de 1:1. Se incluyeron un total de 298 pacientes.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en el departamento de cirugía colorrectal de un hospital de tercer nivel.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años que se fueron sometidos a resecciones colorrectales abiertas, re operatorias y electivas. Se excluyeron aquellos pacientes que tuvieron cirugía abierta en los últimos 3 meses, con infección activa del sitio quirúrgico y que fueron sometidos a procedimientos laparoscópicos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico dentro de los 30 días. Los resultados secundarios fueron infecciones del sitio quirúrgico profundas y del espacio orgánico dentro de los 7 y 30 días, las complicaciones posoperatorias y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 149 pacientes en cada brazo. La edad media fue de 51 años y el 49,5% fueron mujeres. La demografía, las comorbilidades preoperatorias y los niveles de albúmina preoperatoria fueron comparables entre los grupos. En general, la mayoría de las cirugías fueron realizadas por enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y al 77 % de los pacientes se les confecciono una ostomía durante la cirugía. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en la tasa de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial a los 30 días (14,1 % en el control frente a 9,4 % en el tratamiento de herida incisional con presión negativa, p = 0,28). Las tasas de infecciones del sitio quirúrgico profundas y del espacio orgánico a los 7 y 30 días también fueron comparables entre los grupos. La duración de la estancia postoperatoria y las tasas de complicaciones (Clavien-Dindo Graduacion) también fueron comparables entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La población de pacientes incluida en el ensayo consistió en un grupo seleccionado de pacientes de alto riesgo.CONCLUSIONES:Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B956 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Does Prophylactic Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Laparotomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) may prevent surgical site infection (SSI) after laparotomy, but existing meta-analyses pooling only high-quality evidence have failed to confirm this effect. Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if pNPWT reduces the incidence of SSI after laparotomy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched on the 25.08.2021 for RCTs reporting on the incidence of SSI in patients who underwent laparotomy with and without pNPWT. The systematic review was compliant with the AMSTAR2 recommendation and registered into PROSPERO. Risk ratios (RR) for SSI in patients with pNPWT, and risk difference (RD) between control and pNPWT patients, were obtained using random effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² value, and investigated using subgroup analyses, funnel plots and bubble plots. Risk of bias of included RCTs was assessed using the RoB2 tool.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included, representing 973 patients who received pNPWT and 970 patients who received standard wound dressing. Pooled RR and RD between patients with and without pNPWT were of, respectively, 0.665 (95% CI 0.49-0.91, I²: 38.7%, p = 0.0098) and -0.07 (95% CI -0.12 to -0.03, I²: 53.6%, p = 0.0018), therefore demonstrating that pNPWT decreases the incidence of SSI after laparotomy. Investigation of source of heterogeneity identified a potential small-study effect.

CONCLUSION

The protective effect of pNPWT against SSI after laparotomy is confirmed by high-quality pooled evidence.

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.

Controlling the controls: what is negative pressure wound therapy compared to in clinical trials?

AIM

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following colorectal operations. Clinical trials suggest that closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) may reduce SSIs compared to a 'standard of care' group. However, wound management in the standard of care group may vary. The aim of this review was to assess the control arms in trials of ciNPWT for potential confounding variables that could influence the rates of SSI and therefore the trial outcomes.

METHODS

A mapping review of the PubMed database was undertaken in the English language for randomized controlled trials that assessed, in closed surgical wounds, the use of ciNPWT compared to standard of care with SSI as an outcome. Data regarding wound care to assess potential confounding factors that may influence SSI rates were compared between the ciNPWT and standard of care groups. Included were the method of wound closure, control dressing type, frequency of dressing changes and postoperative wound care (washing).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials were included in the mapping review. There was heterogeneity in ciNPWT duration. There was little control in the comparator standard of care groups with a variety of wound closure techniques and different control dressings used. Overall standard of care dressings were changed more frequently than the ciNPWT dressing and there was no control over wound care or washing. No standard for 'standard of care' was apparent.

CONCLUSION

In randomized trials assessing the intervention of ciNPWT compared to standard of care there was considerable heterogeneity in the comparator groups and no standard of care was apparent. Heterogeneity in dressing protocols for standard of care groups could introduce potential confounders impacting SSI rates. There is a need to standardize care in ciNPWT trials to assess potential meaningful differences in SSI prevention.

The impact of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections in pancreatic resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective is to evaluate the effect of prophylactic NPWT on SSI in patients undergoing pancreatectomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception until April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic NPWT to standard dressings in patients undergoing pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was the risk of SSI. Secondary outcomes included the risk of superficial and deep SSI and organ space infection (OSI). Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Four single-centre RCTs including 309 patients were identified. Three studies were industry-sponsored, and two were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of SSI in patients receiving NPWT vs. control (14% vs. 21%, RR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.32-1.60, p = 0.42, I² = 53%). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risk of superficial and deep SSI or OSI. No significant difference was found on subgroup analysis of patients at high risk of wound infection or on sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic NPWT does not significantly decrease the risk of SSI among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Insufficient evidence exists to justify the routine use of NPWT.

Prophylactic effect of negative‐pressure wound therapy and delayed sutures against incisional‐surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy for colorectal perforation: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Aim

The prophylactic effect of negative-pressure wound therapy against incisional surgical site infection after highly contaminated laparotomies has not been sufficiently explored. This study aimed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of negative-pressure wound therapy against incisional surgical site infection after emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

Methods

This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the 48 emergency hospitals certificated by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine. Patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy for colorectal perforation between April 2015 and March 2020 were included in this study. Outcomes, including the incidence of incisional surgical site infection, were compared between patients who were treated with prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy and delayed sutures (i.e., negative-pressure wound therapy group) and patients who were treated with regular wound management (i.e., control group) using 1:4 propensity score matching analysis.

Results

The negative-pressure wound therapy group comprised 88 patients, whereas the control group consisted of 1535 patients. Of them, 82 propensity score-matched pairs (negative-pressure wound therapy group: 82; control group: 328) were evaluated. The negative-pressure wound therapy group showed a lower incidence of incisional surgical site infection [18 (22.0%) in the negative-pressure wound therapy group and 115 (35.0%) in the control group, odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.92; p = 0.026].

Conclusions

The prophylactic use of negative-pressure wound therapy with delayed sutures was associated with a lower incidence of incisional surgical site infection after emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

Clinical Impact of Two-Week Placement of a Subcutaneous Suction Drain in Preventing Incisional Surgical Site Infection in Open Gastrointestinal Surgery with Class 4 Dirty Wound: A Retrospective Study

Background: Two recent randomized controlled trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of subcutaneous drainage in preventing incisional surgical site infection (SSI) in colorectal surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous suction drains (SSDs) compared with primary skin closure (PC) in class 4 dirty wound surgery. Patients and Methods: Eighty-one patients undergoing open gastrointestinal surgery with class 4 dirty wounds were enrolled in this study, 30 of whom underwent SSD insertion, whereas the other 51 were treated with PC. Because several studies have reported that the median onset of the development of incisional SSI was eight to 13 days after surgery, we used a two-week placement of an SSD. Comparison of patients treated with SSD and PC and multivariable analysis were performed to test the ability of SSD in decreasing the SSI rate. Results: No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, steroid use, presence of diabetes mellitus, peri-operative transfusion, and surgery type. Surgical site infection incidence was lower in the SSD group (6.6%; 2/30) than that in the PC group (23.5%; 12/51; p = 0.069). Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of diabetes mellitus was an important independent risk factor for incisional SSI, and the placement of an SSD has substantial preventive effects on incisional SSI (p = 0.018 and p = 0.014, respectively). Conclusions: This study suggested the potential importance of a two-week placement of an SSD for preventing incisional SSI in class 4 dirty wound surgery.

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.

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Neonates and Children: Non-Pharmacological Measures of Prevention

A surgical site infection (SSI) is an infection that occurs in the incision created by an invasive surgical procedure. Although most infections are treatable with antibiotics, SSIs remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after surgery and have a significant economic impact on health systems. Preventive measures are essential to decrease the incidence of SSIs and antibiotic abuse, but data in the literature regarding risk factors for SSIs in the pediatric age group are scarce, and current guidelines for the prevention of the risk of developing SSIs are mainly focused on the adult population. This document describes the current knowledge on risk factors for SSIs in neonates and children undergoing surgery and has the purpose of providing guidance to health care professionals for the prevention of SSIs in this population. Our aim is to consider the possible non-pharmacological measures that can be adopted to prevent SSIs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide recommendations based on a careful review of the available scientific evidence for the non-pharmacological prevention of SSIs in neonates and children. The specific scenarios developed are intended to guide the healthcare professional in practice to ensure standardized management of the neonatal and pediatric patients, decrease the incidence of SSIs and reduce antibiotic abuse.

Closed-wound negative pressure therapy dressing after loop ostomy closure: a retrospective comparative study

Closed-wound negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) dressings were recently introduced with the purpose to reduce incisional surgical site infections (iSSI) in high-risk wounds. The aim of this study was to compare iSSI rates in patients after ostomy closure with and without additional application of a closed-wound NPWT dressing. Single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing ileo- or colostomy closure over an 8-year period (January 2013-January 2021). Intradermal non-purse string technique with absorbable sutures were used in all patients. Since November 2018, all patients (study group) received a NPWT device for a maximum of 5 days postoperatively (PICO, SMITH AND NEPHEW). Primary outcome was iSSI rate within 30 days of surgery. SSI was defined in accordance with the Center of Disease Control (CDC) classification and included superficial and deep incisional SSI. Data was retrieved from the institutional enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) database, with standardized complication assessment by trained abstractors. In total, 85 patients (25%) in the study group were comparable with 252 (75%) patients in the control group regarding demographics (age, gender, body mass index, ASA score), ostomy type and anastomotic technique (all p > 0.05), but not wound contamination class (class III: 5% vs 0%, p < 0.001). Median time to NPWT removal was 4 (IQR 3-5) days. Incisional SSI were observed in 4 patients (4.7%) in the study group and in 27 patients (10.7%) in the control group (p = 0.097). These preliminary results suggest a potential benefit of systematic application of the NPWT device after loop ostomy closure. A randomized controlled study is needed.

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.

Outcome of Prophylactic Postoperative Negative Pressure Wound Treatment in Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Wound infection is a common cause of morbidity in colorectal surgery. We speculated that a prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Treatment (NPWT) is associated with less postoperative wound complications for colorectal cancer patients who undergo a colectomy.

METHODS

Multivariate analysis was used to investigate the association between NPWT and wound complications for patients with colorectal cancer who underwent a colectomy using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database during the 2013 - 2019 period.

RESULTS

We investigated 96 105 patients who underwent colectomy for colorectal cancer during 2013-2019 within the database. Negative Pressure Wound Treatment was utilized for 270 patients following the principal procedure (.3%). Patients who had NPWT had dirtier wounds, less bowel preparation, more extensive surgery (total colectomy vs partial colectomy), higher stoma creation, and more non-elective operations. Multiple factors were associated with postoperative wound complications such as smoking Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR:1.27, P < .01), chronic steroid use (AOR: 1.30, P < .01), obesity (AOR: 1.54, P < .01), and serum albumin level less than 3.5 g/dL (AOR: 1.29, P < .01). Overall, there was no significant decrease in wound complications using NPWT (AOR: .66, P = .14). However, a sub-group of patients who underwent emergent/urgent operation had a significant lower risk of wound complications using NPWT (AOR: .3, CI: .09-.99, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic NPWT is associated with a decrease in wound complications of patients who underwent an emergent/urgent colectomy for colorectal cancer. However, we could not find any significant decrease in wound complications for elective colorectal procedures for colorectal cancer. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm these study results.

Application of PREVENA (Surgical Incision Protection System) in reducing surgical site infections following reversal of ileostomy or colostomy: the PRIC study protocol

AIM

There is a current lack of evidence in the literature to support the routine use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSI) in the setting of ileostomy or colostomy reversal. The aim of this study is to examine whether routine NPWT confers a lower rate of SSI than conventional dressings following reversal of ileostomy or colostomy.

METHODS

The PRIC study is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre superiority trial to assess whether routine NPWT following wound closure confers a lower rate of SSI following reversal of ileostomy or colostomy when compared to conventional dressings. Participants will be consecutively identified and recruited. Eligible participants will be randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio, to receive either the NPWT (PREVENA) dressings or conventional dressings which will be applied immediately upon completion of surgery. PREVENA dressings will remain applied for a duration of 7 days. Surgical wounds will then be examined on post-operative day seven as well as during follow-up appointments in OPD for any evidence of SSI. In the interim, public health nurses (PHN) will provide out-patient support services incorporating wound assessment and care as part of a routine basis. Study investigators will liaise with PHN to gather the relevant data in relation to the time to wound healing. Our primary endpoint is the incidence of SSI within 30 days of stoma reversal. Secondary endpoints include measuring time to wound healing, evaluating wound healing and aesthetics and assessing patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The PRIC study will assess whether routine NPWT following wound closure is superior to conventional dressings in the reduction of SSI following reversal of ileostomy or colostomy and ascertain whether routine NPWT should be considered the new standard of care.

Prophylactic Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Prevents Surgical Site Infection in Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) is a public health challenge. Our objective was to determine if prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) allows preventing SSI after laparotomy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on 6 October 2019 for original studies reporting the incidences of SSI in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery with and without pNPWT. Risk differences (RDs) between control and pNPWT patients and risk ratios (RRs) for SSI were obtained using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2930 patients, 5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 16 observational studies) were retained for the analysis. Pooled RD between patients with and without pNPWT was -12% (95% confidence interval [CI], -17% to -8%; I2 = 57%; P < .00001) in favor of pNPWT. That risk difference was -12% (95% CI, -22% to -1%; I2 = 69%; P = .03) when pooling only RCTs (792 patients). pNPWT was protective against the incidence of SSI with a RR of 0.53 (95% CI, .40-.71; I2 = 56%; P < .0001). The effect on pNPWT was more pronounced in studies with an incidence of SSI ≥20% in the control arm. The preventive effect of pNPWT on SSI remained after correction for potential publication bias. However, when pooling only high-quality observational studies (642 patients) or RCTs (527 patients), significance was lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing studies suggest that pNPWT on closed wounds is protective against the occurrence of SSI in abdominal surgery, but these findings need to be confirmed by more high-quality evidence, preferentially in subgroups of patients with an incidence of SSI ≥20% in the control arm.

Surgical Wound Complications after Colorectal Surgery with Single-Use Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Surgical Dressing over Closed Incisions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Global studies indicate that surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major healthcare challenge within hospitals and can have a profound impact on patient quality of life and healthcare costs. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been reported to provide positive clinical benefits for patients with various incisions, including those following colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

Investigators performed a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate complications of surgical incisions in patients who received a ciNPT dressing versus a conventional surgical dressing (control) over their closed incision following colorectal surgery. The incidence of SSI was determined at 7, 15, and 30 days postsurgery.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients participated in the study. Results showed that the SSI rate on day 7 was lower in the ciNPT group versus the control group (10/75 [13.3%] vs 17/73 [23.3%]), but this difference was not statistically significant. On day 15, the SSI rate was 12/75 (16.0%) in the ciNPT group versus 21/73 (28.8%) in the control group; however, this difference was only marginally statistically significant (P = .0621). At 1 month, the SSI rate remained lower in the ciNPT group (13/75 [17.3%] vs 21/73 [28.8%], P = .0983) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies with larger population sizes are necessary to determine the impact of ciNPT on patients' incisions after colorectal surgery.

Negative-pressure wound therapy after stoma reversal in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Stoma-reversal surgery is associated with high postoperative morbidity, including wound complications and surgical-site infections (SSIs). This study aims to assess whether the application of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can improve wound healing compared with conventional wound dressing.

Methods

This was a single-centre, superiority, open-label, parallel, individually randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing stoma reversal were randomized (1 : 1) to receive NPWT or conventional wound dressing. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of wound complications and SSIs after stoma closure. The secondary endpoints were postoperative wound pain, rate of wound healing after 30 days from stoma closure, and wound aesthetic satisfaction.

Results

Between June 2019 and January 2021, 50 patients were allocated to the NPWT group (all received NPWT, 49 were analysed); 50 patients were allocated to the conventional wound dressing group (48 received the treatment, 45 were analysed). No significant difference was found in wound-complication rate (10 per cent NPWT versus 16 per cent controls; odds ratio 0.61 (95 per cent c.i. 0.18 to 2.10), P = 0.542) and incisional SSI rate (8 per cent NPWT versus 7 per cent controls; odds ratio 1.24 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 5.99), P = 1.000). The NPWT group showed less pain, higher aesthetic satisfaction (P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of wound healing (92 versus 78 per cent; P = 0.081) compared with the control group.

Conclusion

NPWT does not reduce the incidence of SSI after stoma-reversal surgery compared with conventional wound dressing. However, NPWT improved the healing of uninfected wounds, reduced wound pain and led to better aesthetic outcomes.

Registration number: NCT037812016 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for clean-contaminated wounds in abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The role of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in clean-contaminated abdominal wounds is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate whether the use of iNPWT could reduce SSIs and other complications in clean-contaminated abdominal surgery.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science from database inception to 23 January 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs, including 4112 patients, were analyzed, of which 2057 were treated with iNPWT and 2055 with standard dressings. The SSI rates (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.61-0.94, P = 0.01), in patients undergoing an iNPWT intervention were significantly lower than those in patients receiving standard dressings. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of incision dehiscence, seroma, and readmission between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of iNPWT for clean-contaminated wounds in abdominal surgery reduced SSI rates but showed similar rates of wound dehiscence, seroma, and readmission compared with standard dressings.

Challenges Related to Surgical Site Infection Prevention-Results after Standardized Bundle Implementation

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. Methods: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012–2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. Findings: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77–88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures.

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.

Mucosa plication reinforced colorectal anastomosis and trans-anal vacuum drainage: a pilot study with preliminary results

Dehiscence of colorectal anastomosis is a serious complication that is associated with increased mortality, impaired functional and oncological outcomes. The hypothesis was that anastomosis reinforcement and vacuum trans-anal drainage could eliminate some risk factors, such as mechanically stapled anastomosis instability and local infection. Patients with rectal cancer within 10 cm of the anal verge and low anterior resection with double-stapled technique were included consecutively. A stapler anastomosis was supplemented by trans-anal reinforcement and vacuum drainage using a povidone-iodine-soaked sponge. Modified reinforcement using a circular mucosa plication was developed and used. Patients were followed up by postoperative endoscopy and outcomes were acute leak rate, morbidity, and diversion rate. The procedure was successfully completed in 52 from 54 patients during time period January 2019–October 2020. The mean age of patients was 61 years (lower–upper quartiles 54–69 years). There were 38/52 (73%) males and 14/52 (27%) females; the neoadjuvant radiotherapy was indicated in a group of patients in 24/52 (46%). The mean level of anastomosis was 3.8 cm (lower–upper quartiles 3.00–4.88 cm). The overall morbidity was 32.6% (17/52) and Clavien–Dindo complications ≥ 3 grade appeared in 3/52 (5.7%) patients. No loss of anastomosis was recorded and no patient died postoperatively. The symptomatic anastomotic leak was recorded in 2 (3.8%) patients and asymptomatic blind fistula was recorded in one patient 1/52 (1.9%). Diversion ileostomy was created in 1/52 patient (1.9%). Reinforcement of double-stapled anastomosis using a circular mucosa plication with combination of vacuum povidone-iodine-soaked sponge drainage led to a low acute leak and diversion rate. This pilot study requires further investigation.

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.: Trial registration number is NCT04735107, date of registration February 2, 2021, registered retrospectively.

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.

2021 Young Investigator Award Winner: Anatomic Gradients in the Microbiology of Spinal Fusion Surgical Site Infection and Resistance to Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective hospital-registry study.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the microbial epidemiology of surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal fusion surgery and the burden of resistance to standard surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SSI persists as a leading complication of spinal fusion surgery despite the growth of enhanced recovery programs and improvements in other measures of surgical quality. Improved understandings of SSI microbiology and common mechanisms of failure for current prevention strategies are required to inform the development of novel approaches to prevention relevant to modern surgical practice.

METHODS

Spinal fusion cases performed at a single referral center between January 2011 and June 2019 were reviewed and SSI cases meeting National Healthcare Safety Network criteria were identified. Using microbiologic and procedural data from each case, we analyzed the anatomic distribution of pathogens, their differential time to presentation, and correlation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening results. Susceptibility of isolates cultured from each infection were compared with the spectrum of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administered during the index procedure on a per-case basis. Susceptibility to alternate prophylactic agents was also modeled.

RESULTS

Among 6727 cases, 351 infections occurred within 90 days. An anatomic gradient in the microbiology of SSI was observed across the length of the back, transitioning from cutaneous (gram-positive) flora in the cervical spine to enteric (gram-negative/anaerobic) flora in the lumbosacral region (correlation coefficient 0.94, P < 0.001). The majority (57.5%) of infections were resistant to the prophylaxis administered during the procedure. Cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative infection was common at lumbosacral levels and undetected methicillin-resistance was common at cervical levels.

CONCLUSION

Individualized infection prevention strategies tailored to operative level are needed in spine surgery. Endogenous wound contamination with enteric flora may be a common mechanism of infection in lumbosacral fusion. Novel approaches to prophylaxis and prevention should be prioritized in this population.Level of Evidence: 3.

Surgical wound infection prevention using topical negative pressure therapy on closed abdominal incisions - the 'SWIPE IT' randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections in surgical patients. It is unclear whether incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can reduce the risk of SSIs in patients after open abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, non-blinded multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed to evaluate the incidence of SSI post-laparotomy using incisional NPWT compared with a standard dressing. The primary outcome was the rate of superficial SSI.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients (61 patients in the NPWT arm and 63 patients in the control arm) were included. One hundred and nine (87.9%) patients underwent colorectal surgery; 61 patients (49.2%) had emergency surgery. There were more superficial SSIs in the control group than in the NPWT group, although not statistically significant (20.6% vs 9.8%, P=0.1). Upon multiple logistic regression analysis, control dressings were associated with increased risk of superficial SSI although again, not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-7.17, P=0.11). There was no superficial non-SSI related wound dehiscence in the NPWT group compared with 9.5% in the control group (P=0.03). There was no difference in postoperative complications (P=0.15), nor in other wound complications (P=0.79).

CONCLUSION

NPWT was not associated with decreased superficial SSI in this RCT. However, there was a statistically significant reduction in superficial wound dehiscence with NWPT dressings. The results of this study should be included in meta-analyses for better evaluation of NPWT on closed abdominal incisions.

Negative pressure wound therapy for prevention of surgical site infection in patients at high risk after clean-contaminated major pancreatic resections: A single-center, phase 3, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections are an important burden of pancreatic surgery, prolonging hospitalization and delaying adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing in terms of the prevention of non-organ-space surgical site infection (superficial and deep surgical site infection) in the high-risk setting.

METHODS

The trial was conducted at the University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy, from July 25, 2018, through October 10, 2019, among adults undergoing surgery for periampullary neoplasms. Only patients at high-risk for surgical site infection based on body mass index, diabetes, steroids, neoadjuvant therapy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index, duration of surgery, and blood loss were included and randomized.

RESULTS

A total of 351 patients were screened, 100 met the inclusion criteria and were 1:1 allocated in the 2 arms. The difference in terms of non-organ-space surgical site infection comparing negative pressure wound therapy with standard sterile dressing was not significant (10.9 vs 12.2%, risk ratio [RR] 1.144, confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.324-4.040, P = 1.000). Hematomas (4.3 vs 2%, RR 1.565, CI 95% 0.312-7.848, P = .609) and organ-space infections (46.7 vs 43.8%, RR 1.059, CI 95% 0.711-1.576, P = .836) were similar. Negative pressure wound therapy prevented the development of seromas (0 vs 12.2%, RR 0.483, CI 95% 0.390-0.599, P = .027). The aesthetic result assessed on postoperative day 7 was better in the negative pressure wound therapy group (visual analogue scale, 8 vs 7, P = .029; Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, 3.2 vs 2.5, P = .009), but it was no more evident on postoperative day 30 after a total number of 23 dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard sterile dressing, negative pressure wound therapy is not associated with an improved rate of non-organ-space surgical site infection after surgery for periampullary neoplasms in patients at high risk for surgical site infection. Additional studies will help identify the population that could benefit most from this intervention.

Role of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy When Performing Elective Open Colectomy

Background: The impact of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) as an adjunct to colorectal surgery is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether NPWT impacts wound complications during elective open colectomy. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and colectomy targeted procedure databases were queried from 2012-2018 for patients undergoing non-emergent planned open colectomies. Groups were propensity score matched for anastomosis type (ileo-colic, colo-colic, colo-rectal), age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, smoking, steroid use, wound classification, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, and wound layers closed. Wound complications were defined as superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep incisional SSI, and dehiscence. Results: A total of 15,770 patients were identified; 92 underwent simultaneous NPWT (0.58%). Non-NPWT patients were matched at a 5:1 ratio, producing 460 comparisons. There was no difference in wound complications (8.26% non-NPWT vs. 6.52% NPWT; p = 0.574). In addition, there were no differences in wound complications when only including patients who had NPWT placed over closed skin (9.11% non-NPWT vs. 7.25% NPWT; p = 0.789). On multivariable analysis, NPWT was not associated with wound complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.69). Conclusions: Negative pressure wound therapy does not reduce wound complications in open elective colectomies. Large randomized studies and more granular data are needed to ascertain if there is any benefit in select patient populations.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on closed incisions to prevent surgical site infection in high-risk patients in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial-the NP-SSI trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional surgical site infections (iSSI) in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery usually lead to prolonged hospital stays, consume valuable resources, and impact on patients' outcome. Prophylactic closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) to decrease wound complications has become available. Owing to an increasing number of studies, evidence for superiority in many indication areas has accumulated; however, in general surgery, there are a few data and those have shown contradictory results.

METHODS

In this monocentric, prospective, randomized, controlled, two-armed study, the influence of ciNPWT on incisional surgical site infection rates after HPB operations will be investigated. A total of 222 patients will be randomized 1:1 to an interventional group (7-day treatment with ciNPWT) or a control group (treated with gauze dressing). The primary parameter to evaluate efficacy is the rate of incisional SSIs within 30 days after surgery. Additionally, several clinically relevant secondary outcomes will be assessed.

DISCUSSION

A reduction in the rate of incisional SSIs would not only lead to a significant cost reduction and shorter postoperative length of stay, but may also improve postoperative quality of life for patients. While earlier publications have shown advantages for ciNPWT, recent studies did not confirm a positive effect regarding iSSI rate. Even if iSSI rate is not reduced, findings obtained from the secondary endpoints may be of clinical relevance, such as reduction of wound complication rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS 00015136 . Registered on 19 February 2019 and has been approved by the local ethics committee of the University of Regensburg: 18-1225-101.

Surgical site infection in elective colonic and rectal resections: effect of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation compared with mechanical bowel preparation only

AIM

Surgical site infections are disproportionately common after colorectal surgery and may be largely preventable. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the effect of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infections.

METHOD

A retrospective study of a consecutive series of elective colonic and rectal resections following an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway, which also included mechanical bowel preparation, from 1 September 2014 to 30 September 2017. The addition of oral antibiotics (neomycin and metronidazole) to the mechanical bowel preparation procedure was assessed. Development of surgical site infections within 30 days was the main outcome measured. The secondary outcome was assessment of possible surgical site infection predictors.

RESULTS

Seven-hundred thirty-two patients were included: 313 (43%) preintervention (mechanical bowel preparation only); and 419 (57%) postintervention (mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotics). Surgical site infection rates preintervention and. postintervention were: overall, 20.8% vs 10.5%, P < 0.001; superficial, 10.9% vs 4.3%, P < 0.001; and organ space, 9.9% vs 6.2%, P = 0.03. Subgroup analysis of colonic resections revealed a significant reduction in overall (17.1% vs 6.8%), superficial (10.7% vs 4.3%) and organ space (6.4% vs. 2.6%) infections. Rectal resections had significant reduction in overall (26.2% vs 15.3%) and superficial (11.1% vs 4.4%) infection rates but not in organ space infections (15.1% vs 10.9%). Multivariate regression analysis revealed open vs minimally invasive surgery (P < 0.001) and omission of oral antibiotics (P = 0.004) as independent predictors of surgical site infections.

CONCLUSION

Administration of oral antibiotics resulted in significant reduction of superficial and organ space infections after colonic resection; after rectal resection, significant reduction only of superficial infections was found.

Efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Followed by Delayed Primary Closure for Abdominal Wounds in Patients with Lower Gastrointestinal Perforations: Multicenter Prospective Study

Objectives:

The efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and its application to severely contaminated wounds sustained during surgery remain to be established. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of utilizing NPWT until delayed primary closure (DPC) by assessing the infection rates in patients with lower gastrointestinal perforations.

Methods:

This prospective multicenter cohort study included 56 patients that underwent abdominal surgery for lower gastrointestinal perforations in eight institutions, from February 2016 to May 2017. All patients received NPWT after surgery before attempting DPC. The extent of peritonitis was categorized according to Hinchey's classification. Patients in stages II-IV were included.

Results:

Five patients had surgical site infections (SSIs) during NPWT and did not receive a DPC (9%). Of the 51 patients that received DPCs, 44 had no infection (91%) and 7 developed SSIs after the DPC (13.7%). For stages II, III, and IV, the SSI rates were 0%, 22.6%, and 35.7%, respectively; the median (range) times to wound healing were 15 (10-36), 19 (11-99), and 19 (10-53) days, respectively. There were no significant differences between the stages.

Conclusions:

NPWT followed by DPC resulted in low infection rates in each peritonitis stage. This approach appears promising as an alternative to traditional DPC alone for treating lower gastrointestinal perforations.

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy does not reduce surgical site infections in abdominal midline incisions: a case control study

Purpose: There is evidence from various surgical specialties that incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) might reduce postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs). In visceral and general surgery, there is varying evidence of its efficacy in reducing surgical site infections.Methods: A prospectively registered patient cohort of 43 patients with abdominal wall and visceral surgery received treatment with iNPWT and was compared to a matched retrospective cohort to analyze its effects on SSI occurrence and respective risk factors. Groups were matched by procedure, sex, body mass index and age. We used two different systems of iNPWT: (i) PREVENA^TM or (ii) self-made epicutaneous iNPWT from common VAC material.Results: We could not find a total reduction in postoperative SSIs by application of iNPWT. But within the iNPWT cohort, patients with self-made iNPWT suffered more often from SSIs compared to the commercial iNPWT subgroup. No patient specific risk factors could be identified to advocate the use of iNPWT.Conclusion: Our data do not support the use of an incisional negative pressure wound therapy on closed wounds in midline laparotomy incisions. Although, differences exist between the commmercial and self-made systems.

A Multi-Modal Approach to Closing Exploratory Laparotomies Including High-Risk Wounds

Background

Laparotomy incisions with contamination have a high incidence of surgical site infection (SSI). One strategy to reduce SSI has been to allow these wounds to heal by secondary intention; however, this results in an ongoing need for wound care after discharge.

Methods

A prospectively maintained Acute and Critical Care Surgery database was queried for patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy during 2008-2018. Patients were stratified into two groups: 2008-2015 (no protocol [NP]) and 2016-2018 (closure protocol [CP]). CP patients were operated on by a single surgeon utilizing a multi-modal high-risk incisional closure protocol, which included dilute chlorhexidine lavage, closed suction drains for incisions deeper than 3 centimeters, and incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT). The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines were used to determine wound classification and SSI based on chart review. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

A total of 139 patients met the study criteria. The overall SSI rate, including superficial and deep space infections, was no different in NP versus CP (21.6 vs. 24.1%; p=0.74). The rate of superficial SSI was similar between NP and CP (11.8 vs. 8.4%; p=0.53). Rates of wound closure at discharge were higher in the CP group than the NP group across wound classes, with the greatest difference among dirty wounds (50.0% NP vs. 94.9% CP; p<0.01). CP significantly increased the likelihood of wound closure (OR=179.2; p<0.001) even after controlling for body mass index, wound classification, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status, and initially open abdomen.

Conclusions

By addressing both tissue factors and bacterial burden through the use of a multi-modal high-risk incisional closure protocol involving iNPWT, all wounds can be considered for closure without increasing the risk of SSI.

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.

Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduces Surgical Site Infections in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: The main purpose was to assess the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for surgical site infection (SSI) in elective open and laparoscopic open-assisted colorectal surgery. The primary end point was to establish SSI within 30 days post-operatively. The secondary aim was hospital stay and to assess SSI predictors in a multivariable analysis. Patients and Methods: A prospective cohort study was undertaken between January 2017 and December 2018 in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, both through open and minimally invasive approaches, to whom NPWT or fully occlusive dressing were applied. Baseline data were compared between the two groups and multivariable analysis was performed to identify SSI risk factors. Results: Two hundred patients were included: 100 NPWT patients and 100 closed dressing patients. No differences between the two groups were found. The incidence of SSI in the control dressing group was 19% versus 9% in the NPWT group, which was substantially different (odds ratio [OR] 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.83; p = 0.02). No differences were found in hospital length of stay (12.33 d in NPWT group vs. 12.39 d in the control group; p = 0.82). A body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 (p = 0.04), BMI >35 (p = 0.03), and midline wound (p = 2.68) were found to be predictors of SSI in multivariable analysis. Conclusion: The prophylactic use of NPWT in laparotomy incisions for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery (both through open and laparoscopic approach) is associated with a reduction in SSI rates.

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.

Clinical Applications and Benefits of Using Closed-incision Negative Pressure Therapy with Novel Dressing: A Review Article

Surgical site occurrences (SSOs) are common in patients undergoing operative procedures, especially in the form of surgical site infections (SSIs). Multiple studies show that obesity, tobacco use, prolonged surgical time, and diabetes mellitus are the major risk factors for SSIs. SSIs increase healthcare costs and often result in morbidity. Many surgeons are currently using closed-incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) to counter SSIs. This method makes it easier for them to manage closed and surgical incisions. This technique has already been applied in the plastic surgery field. This study discusses how the use of ciNPT is helping surgeons to reduce complications related to SSOs. The technique has been reported to minimize the rate of reoperations, readmissions, and other wound-related complications. Using ciNPT with novel dressing has proved to be a significantly effective clinical intervention method in managing clean and closed wounds. The novel dressing protects the incision from external contamination and minimizes lateral tension.

Closed incision negative pressure therapy: Results of recent trials and recommendations for clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Open abdominal surgery is associated with high rates of wound complications . Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with prolonged length of stay, delayed treatment and high rates of readmission ^{(1, 3, 4)}. Negative pressure wound therapy over closed incisions (ciNPWT) is a novel approach to prevention of SSI. We reviewed the outcomes of studies comparing ciNPWT and standard therapy in open abdominal wounds to assess the efficacy of the current evidence base.

AIM

To assess the effect of negative pressure wound therapy used over closed incisions in open abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Search of relevant terms was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane to identify studies published between Jan 2006-Feb 2019. Studies were chosen based on specific inclusion criteria. Articles were screened to assess demographics, study design and outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective and six prospective randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion, totalling 3048 participants. 967 received ciNPWT and 2081 received standard treatment. Studies assessed a mix of surgeries (colorectal n = 6, pancreaticoduodenectomy n = 1, gynaecologic n = 1, acute care surgery n = 1, mixed open n = 2). ciNPWT was statistically significant in reducing SSI in 9 of 13 studies.

CONCLUSION

ciNPWT in open abdominal surgery has demonstrated promising results for reducing SSI rate in some trials however, patient selection remains unclear. Recent randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate benefit overall with use of ciNPWT in open abdominal surgery. Further multicentre prospective trials are needed for cost-benefit analysis and appropriate patient-selection.

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

BACKGROUND

Superficial surgical site infections are a common post-operative complication. They also place a considerable financial burden on healthcare. The use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy has been advocated to reduce wound infection rates. However, there is debate around its routine use. The purpose of this trial is to determine if prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces post-operative wound complications in patients undergoing laparotomy.

METHODS/DESIGN

This multi-centre randomised controlled trial will compare standard surgical dressings (control) to two competing negative pressure wound therapy dressings (Prevena™ and PICO™). All patients will be over 18 years, who are undergoing an emergency or elective laparotomy. It is intended to enrol a total of 271 patients for the trial.

DISCUSSION

The PROPEL trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing laparotomy. The comparison of standard treatment to two commercially available NPWT will help provide consensus on the routine management of laparotomy wounds.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT number NCT03871023).