A case of continuous negative pressure wound therapy for abdominal infected lymphocele after kidney transplantation

Surgical Site Infections Complicating the Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Renal Transplant Recipients

Surgical site infections (SSI) of the abdominal wall in renal transplant recipients can on occasion require management with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). This is often successful, with a low risk of further complications. However, we describe three cases in which persistent or recurrent surgical site sepsis occurred, whilst NPWT was being deployed in adults with either wound dehiscence or initial SSI. This type of complication in the setting of NPWT has not been previously described in renal transplant recipients. Our case series demonstrates that in immunosuppressed transplant recipients, there may be ineffective microbial or bacterial bioburden clearance associated with the NPWT, which can lead to further infections. Hence recognition for infections in renal transplant patients undergoing treatment with NPWT is vital; furthermore, aggressive management of sepsis control with early debridement, antimicrobial use, and reassessment of the use of wound dressing is necessary to reduce the morbidity associated with surgical site infections and NPWT.

Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association for management guidelines of vacuum sealing drainage application in abdominal surgeries-Update and systematic review

Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association organized a committee composed of 28 experts across China in July 2017, aiming to provide an evidence-based recommendation for the application of VSD in abdominal surgeries. Eleven questions regarding the use of VSD in abdominal surgeries were addressed: (1) which type of materials should be respectively chosen for the intraperitoneal cavity, retroperitoneal cavity and superficial incisions? (2) Can VSD be preventively used for a high-risk abdominal incision with primary suture? (3) Can VSD be used in severely contaminated/infected abdominal surgical sites? (4) Can VSD be used for temporary abdominal cavity closure under some special conditions such as severe abdominal trauma, infection, liver transplantation and intra-abdominal volume increment in abdominal compartment syndrome? (5) Can VSD be used in abdominal organ inflammation, injury, or postoperative drainage? (6) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intestinal fistula and pancreatic fistula? (7) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intra-abdominal and extra-peritoneal abscess? (8) Can VSD be used in the treatment of abdominal wall wounds, wound cavity, and defects? (9) Does VSD increase the risk of bleeding? (10) Does VSD increase the risk of intestinal wall injury? (11) Does VSD increase the risk of peritoneal adhesion? Focusing on these questions, evidence-based recommendations were given accordingly. VSD was strongly recommended regarding the questions 2-4. Weak recommendations were made regarding questions 1 and 5-11. Proper use of VSD in abdominal surgeries can lower the risk of infection in abdominal incisions with primary suture, treat severely contaminated/infected surgical sites and facilitate temporary abdominal cavity closure.

Abdominal wall complications following renal transplantation in adult recipients - factors associated with interventional management in one unit

Background

Abdominal wall surgical site complications following renal transplantation can be challenging to manage. A sub-group of these recipients will require operative management or advanced wound care such as negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). The aim of this study was to determine if there were any preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative characteristics in our recipients’ cohort which were associated with the requirement for such interventions.

Methods

A retrospective review of medical records was performed for all recipients who sustained abdominal wall complications following renal transplantation at our centre from 2006 to 2016.

Results

A total of 64/828 recipients (7.7%) had abdominal wall complications. The mean weight for these patients was 84.9 kg (±16.6 kg) and the mean body mass index was 30.2 (±5.1). Forty-five recipients (70%) had a superficial wound dehiscence while nine (14%) had a complete fascial dehiscence. Operative intervention was required in 13/64 patients (20%) and was more likely to be required in the presence of a fascial dehiscence (9/9, 100%) or a wound collection (10/31, 32%) (p < 0.001, p = 0.021). NPWT was used in 17/64 patients (27%) and was more commonly required in patients with diabetes mellitus (10/24, 42%), a complete fascial dehiscence (5/9, 56%) or evidence of infection (16/44, 36%) (p = 0.039, p = 0.034, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

The requirement for either operative management or the use of NPWT in the management of abdominal wall complications following renal transplantation in our experience was more common in recipients with diabetes mellitus, and in the setting of either complete fascial dehiscence, abdominal wall wound collections and/ or infection.

Vacuum Sealing Drainage Therapy for Refractory Infectious Wound on 16 Renal Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Refractory infectious wounds on renal transplantation (RT) recipients significantly prolong hospital stay, increase medical costs, and threaten allograft survival. Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) therapy is a new technique for managing wounds based on the principle of application of controlled negative pressure. The aim of this study was to summarize the efficacy and safety of VSD therapy in the management of refractory infectious wounds following RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of a cohort of 661 consecutive patients who received renal transplants over a period of 3 years in which the data were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Out of the 661 patients, 16 (2.4%) developed refractory wound infection following RT. Nineteen organisms were identified by culture from all patients, including 10 patients infected with 1 or more bacteria, 2 patients with fungal infection, and 4 patients with both. Specifically, mucormycosis was demonstrated in 4 patients, pan-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in 2 patients, and Acinetobacter baumannii in 2 patients. All 16 patients were treated with VSD therapy for a median of 37 days (range, 6-111 days). The number of VSD sets used ranged from 4 to 28 sets (mean, 11.1 sets). A combination of antibiotics, debridement, and VSD therapy lead to 100% (16 of 16) wound healing. No VSD-relevant adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

VSD therapy is an effective and safe adjunct to conventional treatment modalities for the management of refractory wound infection following RT.