Evaluation of inguinal vascular surgical scars treated with closed incisional negative pressure wound therapy using three-dimensional digital imaging-A randomized controlled trial on bilateral incisions

Effect of closed incision negative pressure wound treatment in vascular surgery: A meta-analysis

The meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the effect of closed-incision negative pressure wound (NPW) treatment in vascular surgery. Using dichotomous or contentious random or fixed effect models, the outcomes of this meta-analysis were examined, and the odds Ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Ten examinations from 2017 to 2022 were enrolled for the present meta-analysis, including 2082 personals with vascular surgery. Closed-incision NPW treatment had significantly lower infection rates (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51, p < 0.001), grade I infection rates (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.52, p < 0.001), grade II infection rates (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.71, p = 0.002), and grade III infection rates (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.73, p = 0.007), and surgical re-intervention (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.97, p = 0.04) compared to control in personal with vascular surgery. However, no significant differences were found between closed-incision NPW treatment and control in the 30-day mortality (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00, p = 0.05), antibiotic treatment (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.19, p = 0.12), and length of hospital stay (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24-0.19, p = 0.83) in personnel with vascular surgery. The examined data revealed that closed-incision NPW treatment had significantly lower infection rates, grade I infection rates, grade II infection rates, and grade III infection rates, surgical re-intervention, however, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, antibiotic treatment, or length of hospital stay compared to control group with vascular surgery. Yet, attention should be paid to its values since some comparisons had a low number of selected studies.

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.

The Impact of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound on Scar Quality and Patient Reported Outcomes: a Within-Patient Controlled, Randomized Trial

Literature provides a moderate level of evidence for the beneficial effects of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) on scar quality. The purpose of this study was to establish if iNPWT results in improved scar outcomes in comparison to the standard of care. Therefore, a within‐patient randomised controlled, open‐label trial was conducted in transgender men undergoing gender‐affirming mastectomies. A unilateral side was randomised to receive iNPWT (PICO™, Smith&Nephew) without suction drains and contrastingly the standard dressing (Steri‐Strips™) with suction drain. Scar quality and questionnaires were bilaterally measured by means of objective assessments and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) at 1, 3 and 12 months. Objective scar outcomes were scar pliability (Cutometer®), colouration (DSM‐II) and scar width (3‐D imaging). PROM outcomes were related to scars (POSAS and SCAR‐Q) and body satisfaction (BODY‐Q). From 85 included patients, 80 were included for analyses. No significant difference between treatments was seen in the quantitative outcomes of scar pliability, colour, and width. For qualitative scar outcomes, several significant findings for iNPWT were found for several subscales of the POSAS, SCAR‐Q, and BODY‐Q. These effects could not be substantiated with linear mixed‐model regression, signifying no statically more favourable outcome for either treatment option. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that some PROM outcomes were more favourable for the iNPWT compared to standard treatment. In contrast, the quantitative outcomes showed no beneficial effects of iNPWT on scar outcomes. This suggests that iNPWT is of little benefit as a scar‐improving therapy.

Clinical Evaluation of Scar Quality Following the Use of Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Obese Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery: A Trial-Based Scar Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cosmetic result of using incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) compared with standard postsurgical dressings in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

Postcesarean scars were objectively evaluated 6 and 12 months postsurgery by a plastic surgeon using the Manchester Scar Scale and the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. Subjective scar evaluation and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Patient Scar Assessment Scale and the EQ-5D-5L instrument, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cosmetic and functional outcome of treating a standardized surgical wound with iNPWT compared with standard dressings, changes in scar rating over time, and testing different scar scales for cosmetic evaluation.

RESULTS

The study found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes between iNPWT and standard dressings. The study demonstrated a statistically significant positive change in scar rating from surgery to 12 months postsurgery. A strong association was found between the scar scales with a high correlation between the objective scar scales (R approximately 0.80) and a moderate correlation between the subjective scale and each objective scale (R approximately 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic iNPWT has been found to reduce the risk of surgical site infection following CD. Conversely, this study was not able to detect a difference in the long-term cosmetic result after CD when compared with standard dressings.

Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Surgical-site complications (SSCs) remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether prophylactic use of a specific single-use negative-pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) device reduced the incidence of SSCs after closed surgical incisions compared with conventional dressings.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify articles published from January 2011 to August 2018. RCTs and observational studies comparing PICO™ sNPWT with conventional dressings, with at least 10 patients in each treatment arm, were included. Meta-analyses were performed to determine odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes were other SSCs and hospital efficiencies. Risk of bias was assessed.

Results

Of 6197 citations screened, 29 studies enrolling 5614 patients were included in the review; all studies included patients with risk factors for SSCs. sNPWT reduced the number of SSIs (OR 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.28 to 0.50; number needed to treat (NNT) 20). sNPWT reduced the odds of wound dehiscence (OR 0.70, 0.53 to 0.92; NNT 26), seroma (OR 0.23, 0.11 to 0.45; NNT 13) and necrosis (OR 0.11, 0.03 to 0.39; NNT 12). Mean length of hospital stay was shorter in patients who underwent sNPWT (MD −1.75, 95 per cent c.i. −2.69 to −0.81).

Conclusion

Use of the sNPWT device in patients with risk factors reduced the incidence of SSCs and the mean length of hospital stay.

A systematic review evaluating the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on scarring

Pathological scars can result in functional impairment, disfigurement, a psychological burden, itch, and even chronic pain. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (iNPWT) on scarring. PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for preclinical and clinical comparative studies that investigated the influence of iNPWT on scarring‐related outcomes. Individual studies were assessed using the OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal studies. The body of evidence was rated using OHAT methodology. Six preclinical studies and nine clinical studies (377 patients) were identified. Preclinical studies suggested that iNPWT reduced lateral tension on incisions, increased wound strength, and reduced scar width upon histological assessment. Two clinical studies reported improved patient‐reported scar satisfaction as measured with the PSAS (1 year after surgery), POSAS, and a VAS (both 42, 90, and 180 days after surgery). Five clinical studies reported improved observer‐reported scar satisfaction as measured with the VSS, SBSES, OSAS, MSS, VAS, and POSAS (7, 15, 30, 42, 90, 180, and 365 days after surgery). Three clinical studies did not detect significant differences at any point in time (POSAS, VAS, and NRS). Because of imprecision concerns, a moderate level of evidence was identified using OHAT methodology. Preclinical as well as clinical evidence indicates a beneficial influence of iNPWT on scarring. Moderate level evidence indicates that iNPWT decreases scar width and improves patient and observer‐reported scar satisfaction.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Closed incision negative pressure therapy following abdominoplasty after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps

Autologous breast reconstructions using deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps create a large incision, presenting an opportunity for surgical site complications. In this pilot study, we aimed to examine outcomes in DIEP donor site incisions managed with standard dressings (control; n = 5) or closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT; n = 5). We observed no significant differences between group age, body mass index, and past medical history. Both treatment groups had a similar duration of hospital stay, the number of blood transfusions, and pain scores on postoperative day 2 (P > .05). There was a trend of higher drainage (P = .251) and shorter time to incision healing (P = .067) in the ciNPT group than the control though the difference was not statistically significant. We did observe a significant improvement in scar pigmentation, vascularity, and pliability at 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery in the ciNPT group compared with control (P < .05). No surgical site complications were reported in the ciNPT group within the follow-up period. In the control group, one patient developed wound edge fat necrosis requiring reoperation. In conclusion, we report that ciNPT is a useful incision management system for DIEP flap donor site incisions and it facilitated improved scar quality over standard dressings in this small pilot study. Further clinical studies are required to assess the full advantages provided by ciNPT.