Negative pressure wound therapy for high-risk wounds in lower extremity revascularization: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Prophylactic Transversely Hemisected Sartorius Flap for High-Risk Groin Dissections in Vascular Surgery-A Case Series

Groin wound dehiscence and infection are a common complication of femoral artery exposure. In patients with prosthetic conduits placed in the groin, these complications can lead to graft infection or anastomotic dehiscence with hemorrhage. Sartorius flaps can be useful in preventing graft infections or anastomotic breakdown in the setting of wound infections. Prophylactic sartorius flaps have been suggested to be a useful adjunct in patients who are at high risk for groin complications. Standard sartorius flaps can be difficult to perform and increase the operative time. We present our experience with a modified sartorius flap, a Transversely Hemisected Sartorius (THT), which avoids dissection to the anterior superior iliac spine. Patients who received femoral artery exposure and a modified prophylactic sartorius flap were included in this case series. The Penn Groin Assessment Scale (PGAS) was calculated for each patient and our primary outcome was the rate of deep space wound infections. Fifteen patients received a THT muscle flap. The average age of the cohort was 67.5 (35-86) years. Eight (50%) were male. The mean PGAS was 2.5 (0-6). Eight (50%) groins had a prosthetic conduit underlying the flap. Four (25%) patients had infrainguinal bypass, 3 (18.8%) for femoral-femoral bypass, and 1 (6.3%) patient received aortic-bifemoral bypass. Eight (50%) patients received sartorius flap after femoral artery exposure for thromboembolectomy, endarterectomy, or access complications. Six (37.5%) patients developed superficial surgical site infections however no deep space infections or prosthetic graft excisions resulted. This procedure was effective in preventing graft infections in all patients with high-risk features for groin infection in our retrospective case series. The segmental blood supply is maintained while providing good coverage of the femoral vessels with this rotational flap.

Effectiveness of Closed Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Infrainguinal Bypass in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

To analyze surgical site infections (SSIs) after infrainguinal bypass for standard dressings versus closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) in the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed SSI after infrainguinal bypass procedures in the VQI from December 2019 to December 2021 comparing ciNPWT and standard dressings. The primary outcome of any superficial or deep wound infection at 30 days was analyzed in a subset of procedures with 30-day follow-up data (cohort A, n = 1,575). Secondary outcomes including in-hospital SSI, return to the operating room (OR) for infection, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed for all procedures (cohort B, n = 9,288). Outcomes were analyzed in propensity-matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Patients who received ciNPWT (n = 1,389) were more likely to be female (34% vs. 32%, P = 0.04) with a higher rate of smoking history (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.003), diabetes (54% vs. 50%, P = 0.007), obesity (34% vs. 26%, P < 0.001), prior peripheral vascular intervention (57% vs. 51%, P < 0.001), and to prosthetic conduit (55% vs. 48%, P < 0.001) compared to patients with standard dressings (n = 7,899). After propensity matching of cohort A (n = 1,256), the 30-day SSI rate was 4% (12/341) in the ciNPWT and 6% (54/896) in the standard dressing group (P = 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-1.06). In the propensity-matched in-hospital cohort B (n = 5,435), SSI was 3% (35/1,371) in the ciNPWT group and 2% (95/4,064) in the standard dressing group (P = 0.66). There was no difference in the rate of return to the OR for infection, 1% (36/4,064) vs. 1% (19/1,371) (P = 0.13) or LOS, 9.0 vs. 9.0 days (P = 0.86) for the standard versus ciNPWT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of the VQI registry, the use of ciNPWT after infrainguinal bypass did not result in a statistically significant decrease in 30-day SSI. We recommend that surgeons consider the use of ciNPWT as part of a bundled process of care for high risk rather than all patients, as it may reduce SSI after infrainguinal bypass.

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.

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.

Transverse versus vertical groin incision for femoral artery approach

BACKGROUND

Access to the femoral vessels is necessary for a wide range of vascular procedures, including treatment of thromboembolic disease, arterial grafts (i.e. bifemoral aortic bypass or infrainguinal bypass), endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR), thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The surgical technique used to access the femoral artery may be a factor in the occurrence of postoperative complications; this will be the focus of our review. We will compare the transverse surgical technique-a cut made parallel to the groin crease-versus the vertical groin incision surgical technique-classic technique: a surgical cut made across the groin crease-to access the femoral artery, in an attempt to determine which technique has the lower rate of complications, is safer and is more effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transverse groin incision compared with vertical groin incision for accessing the femoral artery in endovascular surgical procedures and open surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to 17 February 2020. The review authors searched the IBECS database to 26 March 2020 and reference lists of relevant studies/papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials (qRCTs) that compare transverse and vertical groin incision, during either endovascular or open surgery procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MVCRC, FCN) independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, performed data analysis and graded the certainty of evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT and one qRCT in this review. These two studies had a combined total of 237 participants (283 groins). Infection of the surgical wound was the only outcome that was similar in both studies, and that could therefore be submitted to a combined analysis. Meta-analysis of the two studies showed low-certainty evidence that transverse groin incision resulted in a lower risk of surgical wound infection in the 10- to 28-day period following surgery (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08 to 0.76; 2 studies; 283 groin incisions). There was low heterogeneity between the studies. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for surgical wound infection by one level due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains). The confidence interval for surgical wound infection is relatively wide, further indicating that the certainty of the effect estimate is low. This is likely due to the small number of studies and participants. We observed no evidence of a difference between the two surgical techniques for the other evaluated primary outcome 'lymphatic complications': lymphocele (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.02; 1 study; 116 groins); and lymphorrhea (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.34; 1 study; 116 groins). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for lymphatic complications by one level due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains); and by two further levels because of imprecision (small number of participants and only one study included). High-quality studies are needed to enable a comparison of the two surgical techniques with respect to other outcomes, such as infection of the vascular graft (endoprosthesis/prosthesis), prolonged hospitalization, reoperative surgery, death, neurological deficit (e.g. paresthesia), amputation, graft patency, and postoperative pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we found low-certainty evidence that performing transverse groin incision to access the femoral artery resulted in fewer surgical wound infections compared with performing vertical groin incision. We observed no evidence of a difference between the two surgical techniques for the other evaluated outcomes (lymphocele and lymphorrhea). Other outcomes were not evaluated in these studies. Limitations of this systematic review are, however, the small sample size, short clinical follow-up period and high risk of bias in critical domains. For this reason, the applicability of the results is limited.

Steroids in cardiac surgery trial: a substudy of surgical site infections

PURPOSE

Postoperative infection, particularly in cardiac surgery, results in significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost. Identification of novel predictors of postoperative infection can target high-risk populations for prophylactic intervention.

METHODS

Steroids in cardiac surgery (SIRS) was a multi-centre randomized-controlled trial assessing intraoperative administration of methylprednisone during cardiac surgery, which enrolled 7,507 patients across 80 centres in 18 countries. It demonstrated that administration of steroids had no effect on mortality or major morbidity after cardiac surgery. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for postoperative surgical site infections using SIRS participants as a cohort. We excluded patients who did not undergo surgery, died intraoperatively, or died within 48 hr of the operation. Patients were assessed for development of "surgical site infection" over the first 30 days postoperatively. Using theoretical and previously identified risk factors, we used forward stepwise entry to create a binary logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Follow-up at 30 days was complete for all patients; 7,406 were included in the cohort. Surgical site infection occurred in 180 (4.8%) and 184 (5.0%) of patients in the placebo and steroid arms respectively. Significant risk factors (P < 0.05 level) included: diabetes managed with insulin (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 to 2.12), oral hypoglycemics (aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.16), or diet (aOR 1.81; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.83), female sex (aOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.71), renal failure with (aOR 2.03; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.91), and without (aOR 1.50; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14) dialysis, > 96 min cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (aOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.35), body mass index (BMI) < 22.3 (aOR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71) or > 30 (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.89), peak intensive care unit blood glucose (aOR 1.02 per mmol·L^-1; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.04), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operation type (aOR 2.59; 95% CI 1.87 to 3.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing CABG, requiring longer CPB, with higher BMI, or with diabetes, are at elevated risk of surgical site infection. Strategies to mitigate this risk warrant further investigation.

Closed incision negative pressure therapy: international multidisciplinary consensus recommendations

Surgical site occurrences (SSOs) affect up to or over 25% of patients undergoing operative procedures, with the subset of surgical site infections (SSIs) being the most common. Commercially available closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) may offer surgeons an additional option to manage clean, closed surgical incisions. We conducted an extensive literature search for studies describing ciNPT use and assembled a diverse panel of experts to create consensus recommendations for when using ciNPT may be appropriate. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using key words ‘prevention’, ‘negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)’, ‘active incisional management’, ‘incisional vacuum therapy’, ‘incisional NPWT’, ‘incisional wound VAC’, ‘closed incisional NPWT’, ‘wound infection’, and ‘SSIs’ identified peer‐reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2015. During a multidisciplinary consensus meeting, the 12 experts reviewed the literature, presented their own ciNPT experiences, identified risk factors for SSOs and developed comprehensive consensus recommendations. A total of 100 publications satisfied the search requirements for ciNPT use. A majority presented data supporting ciNPT use. Numerous publications reported SSI risk factors, with the most common including obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m²); diabetes mellitus; tobacco use; or prolonged surgical time. We recommend that the surgeon assess the individual patient's risk factors and surgical risks. Surgeons should consider using ciNPT for patients at high risk for developing SSOs or who are undergoing a high‐risk procedure or a procedure that would have highly morbid consequences if an SSI occurred.