Dataset Information

A systematic review with meta-analysis on prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressing for obese women after caesarean section.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in obese women undergoing caesarean section.

Design

An updated review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to March 2022 without restriction in language. We chose surgical site infection as the primary outcome.

Results

NPWT resulted in a lower surgical site infection rate compared with conventional dressing (risk ratio [RR] = 0.76). The infection rate after low transverse incision was lower comparing the NPWT group with the control group ([RR] = 0.76). No statistically significant difference was detected in blistering([RR] = 2.91). The trial sequential analysis did not support the 20% relative decrease in surgical site infection in the NPWT group. (type II error of 20%).

SUBMITTER: Tian Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10416001 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review with meta-analysis on prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressing for obese women after caesarean section.

Tian Yali Y Li Ka K Zeng Ling L

Nursing open 20230626 9

<h4>Aims</h4>The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in obese women undergoing caesarean section.<h4>Design</h4>An updated review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to March 2022 without restriction in language. We chose ...[more]

PMID: 37365685

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with standard dressings in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) in obese women undergoing caesarean section.DesignMulticentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority trial.SettingFour Australian tertiary hospitals between October 2015 and November 2019.ParticipantsEligible women had a pre-pregnancy body mass index of 30 or greater and gave birth by elective or semi-urgent caesarean section.Intervention2035 consenting women were randomised before the caesarean procedure to closed incision NPWT (n=1017) or standard dressing (n=1018). Allocation was concealed until skin closure.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was cumulative incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes included depth of SSI (superficial, deep, or organ/body space), rates of wound complications (dehiscence, haematoma, seroma, bleeding, bruising), length of stay in hospital, and rates of dressing related adverse events. Women and clinicians were not masked, but the outcome assessors and statistician were blinded to treatment allocation. The pre-specified primary intention to treat analysis was based on a conservative assumption of no SSI for a minority of women (n=28) with missing outcome data. Post hoc sensitivity analyses included best case analysis and complete case analysis.ResultsIn the primary intention to treat analysis, SSI occurred in 75 (7.4%) women treated with closed incision NPWT and in 99 (9.7%) women with a standard dressing (risk ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.01; P=0.06). Post hoc sensitivity analyses to explore the effect of missing data found the same direction of effect (closed incision NPWT reducing SSI), with statistical significance. Blistering occurred in 40/996 (4.0%) women who received closed incision NPWT and in 23/983 (2.3%) who received the standard dressing (risk ratio 1.72, 1.04 to 2.85; P=0.03).ConclusionProphylactic closed incision NPWT for obese women after caesarean section resulted in a 24% reduction in the risk of SSI (3% reduction in absolute risk) compared with standard dressings. This difference was close to statistical significance, but it likely underestimates the effectiveness of closed incision NPWT in this population. The results of the conservative primary analysis, multivariable adjusted model, and post hoc sensitivity analysis need to be considered alongside the growing body of evidence of the benefit of closed incision NPWT and given the number of obese women undergoing caesarean section globally. The decision to use closed incision NPWT must also be weighed against the increases in skin blistering and economic considerations and should be based on shared decision making with patients.Trial registrationANZCTR identifier 12615000286549.

Project description:ImportanceObesity increases the risk of both cesarean delivery and surgical-site infection. Despite widespread use, it is unclear whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery in obese women.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, initiated immediately after cesarean delivery, lowers the risk of surgical-site infections compared with standard wound dressing in obese women.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized trial conducted from February 8, 2017, through November 13, 2019, at 4 academic and 2 community hospitals across the United States. Obese women undergoing planned or unplanned cesarean delivery were eligible. The study was terminated after 1624 of 2850 participants were recruited when a planned interim analysis showed increased adverse events in the negative pressure group and futility for the primary outcome. Final follow-up was December 18, 2019.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to either undergo prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, with application of the negative pressure device immediately after repair of the surgical incision (n = 816), or receive standard wound dressing (n = 808).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was superficial or deep surgical-site infection according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. Secondary outcomes included other wound complications, composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications, and adverse skin reactions.ResultsOf the 1624 women randomized (mean age, 30.4 years, mean body mass index, 39.5), 1608 (99%) completed the study: 806 in the negative pressure group (median duration of negative pressure, 4 days) and 802 in the standard dressing group. Superficial or deep surgical-site infection was diagnosed in 29 participants (3.6%) in the negative pressure group and 27 (3.4%) in the standard dressing group (difference, 0.36%; 95% CI, -1.46% to 2.19%, P = .70). Of 30 prespecified secondary end points, 25 showed no significant differences, including other wound complications (2.6% vs 3.1%; difference, -0.53%; 95% CI, -1.93% to 0.88%; P = .46) and composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications (6.5% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.27%; 95% CI, -2.71% to 2.25%; P = .83). Adverse skin reactions were significantly more frequent in the negative pressure group (7.0% vs 0.6%; difference, 6.95%; 95% CI, 1.86% to 12.03%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong obese women undergoing cesarean delivery, prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, did not significantly reduce the risk of surgical-site infection. These findings do not support routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in obese women after cesarean delivery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03009110.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of a novel antimicrobial dressing on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following a cesarean delivery.Study designThis was an open-label, single-center, two-arm randomized controlled trial. This study was done at the tertiary center, maternal unit, Galveston, TX. Pregnant women with body mass indices ≥35 kg/m2 were screened for eligibility. Women were randomized to ReliaTect Post-Op Dressing (RELIATECT) or standard wound dressing (STANDARD). Primary outcome was patient satisfaction and HRQoL using validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes were provider satisfaction, surgical site infection (SSI) rates, and wound complications.ResultsIn total, 160 women were randomized. Population characteristics were not significant among groups. RELIATECT dressing group had an overall higher score of satisfaction and HRQoL compared with STANDARD group. Women in the RELIATECT group reported less incision odor and incisional pain. Compared with the STANDARD group, most women in RELIATECT dressing group reported better daily activities, self-esteem, personal hygiene, body image, and sleep. Providers reported that the RELIATECT dressing allowed better assessment of the surgical incision site, allowed patients to shower early, and did observe less wound dressing leakage. No differences were found in other secondary end points.ConclusionPostcesarean RELIATECT dressing for wound care in pregnant women with obesity had better patient and provider satisfaction as well as better HRQoL scores. Further, level 1 evidence is needed to assess its impact on SSI rates and wound complication, as this trial was not powered to accomplish this goal.Key points· This study was conducted to evaluate RELIATECT on patient satisfaction and HRQoL following a cesarean.. · Post-cesarean RELIATECT dressing for wound care had better HRQoL and patient and provider satisfaction scores.. · This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating RELIATECT dressing in obese pregnant women undergoing cesarean section..

Project description:BackgroundIn August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment.Methods/designThe DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer's instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs.DiscussionThe DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011).German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).

Dataset Information

A systematic review with meta-analysis on prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressing for obese women after caesarean section.

Aims

Design

Methods

Results

Publications

A systematic review with meta-analysis on prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressing for obese women after caesarean section.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets