Search

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 I 2 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, I 2 : 38.7%, p = 0.0098) and -0.07 (95% CI -0.12 to -0.03, I 2 : 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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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.

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Our objective was to determine current practice in Switzerland regarding the use of pNPWT in abdominal surgery. An online survey was carried out to evaluate the use of pNPWT among abdominal surgeons in Switzerland. One hundred and ten participants replied to the survey from 16.12.2019 to 15.01.2020. Eleven were excluded, leaving 99 responders for analysis. Seventy participants (70.7%) were using pNPWT, 3 (3%) have stopped using it and 26 (26.3%) have never used it. pNPWT was used on midline laparotomy by 63 responders (90%), closed stoma wounds by 21 (30%), closed perineal wounds by 20 (28.6%), Pfannenstiel incisions by 18 (23.7%), groin incisions by 16 (22.9%), subcostal incisions by 13 (18.6%), Mc Burney incisions by 3 (4.3%) and other incisions by 18 (25.7%). Forty-eight participants (68.6%) used pNPWT on less than 10% of patients, 14 (20%) on 10-25% of patients, six (8.6%) on 25-50% of patients and two (2.9%) on 75-100% of patients. Suggestions for improvement to pNPWT were: better sealing, recyclable system, better adaptation to the perineum, smaller device, reduced cost and possibility to check the surgical wound through the dressing. In conclusion, pNPWT is widely used among Swiss surgeons, mostly on midline incisions. However, most of them apply pNPWT on a small proportion of patients only. Suggestions for improvement were a better sealing for complex wounds, reduced cost and possibility to check the wound during the therapy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR., Methods: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds., Results: Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25-30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls., Conclusion: The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.