Back to Search
Start Over
Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Two Different Negative Pressure Therapy Systems in Closed Incision Management.
- Source :
-
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open [Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open] 2019 Jun 21; Vol. 7 (6), pp. e2259. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Jun 21 (Print Publication: 2019). - Publication Year :
- 2019
-
Abstract
- Background: Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) is an emerging approach to managing closed incisions of patients at risk of postoperative complications. There are primarily 2 different commercially available ciNPT systems. Both systems consist of a single-use, battery-powered device and foam- or gauze-based peel-and-place dressing designed for closed incisions. These systems vary in design, and there are no data comparing outcomes between the 2 systems.<br />Methods: We performed 2 separate meta-analyses to compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates postuse of (1) ciNPT with foam dressing (FOAM) versus conventional dressings and (2) ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (MLA) versus conventional dressings.<br />Results: Seven articles and 2 abstracts met inclusion criteria in the FOAM group (n = 489) versus the control group (n = 489) in meta-analysis 1; 7 articles and 1 abstract met inclusion criteria in the MLA group (n = 532) versus the control group (n = 540) in meta-analysis 2. Meta-analysis 1 showed that patients in the control group were 3.17 times more likely to develop an SSI compared with patients in the FOAM group [weighted mean odds ratios of FOAM group versus control group was 3.17 ( P < 0.0001) with the 95% confidence intervals of 2.17-4.65]. Meta-analysis 2 showed no significant difference in SSI rates between patients in the MLA group and patients in the control group [weighted mean odds ratios of MLA group versus control group was 1.70 ( P = 0.08) with the 95% confidence intervals of 0.94-3.08].<br />Conclusions: Comparing outcomes of two different ciNPT systems with a common comparator (conventional dressings) may provide an interim basis for comparing ciNPT systems until further comparative evidence is available. More comparative research is required to determine outcomes in clinical practice.<br /> (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2169-7574
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 6
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 31624675
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002259