Evaluation of Negative Pressure Dressings for Closed Surgical Incisions in Decreasing Surgical Site Infections After Emergency Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of negative pressure dressings (NPDs) versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions after emergency midline laparotomy, focusing on their impact on surgical site infection (SSI) rates, wound dehiscence, hospital stay duration, and cosmetic outcomes. Methods The randomized controlled study was conducted over 24 months, involving 80 patients aged 18-65 years who had peritonitis and underwent emergency midline laparotomies. Patients with diabetes mellitus, a BMI >35 kg/m², immunocompromised conditions, or those requiring re-exploration within 30 days of surgery were excluded. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups using a computer-generated randomization table: Group A, the case group, consisted of 40 patients who received NPDs, while Group B, the control group, included 40 patients who received conventional dressings. Data were recorded in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Released 2017; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with a p-value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The overall occurrence of SSIs within the 30-day follow-up period was significantly lower in the NPD group compared to the conventional dressing group (30% vs. 70%, p < 0.05). The mean duration of hospital stay was 14.85 ± 10.43 days for the NPD group and 15.4 ± 9.75 days for the control group, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score was 5.3 ± 2.47 in the NPD group and 6.5 ± 2.14 in the control group, also showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.11). Conclusions NPDs significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs compared to conventional dressings, but they did not have a significant impact on scar cosmesis or the duration of hospital stay.
Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Ethics Committee, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi issued approval F.No.17/IEC/MAMC/2018. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
(Copyright © 2024, Sahni et al.)