Dataset Information

Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy After Laparotomy for Gynecologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To estimate the effectiveness of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in patients undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic surgery.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial. Eligible, consenting patients, regardless of body mass index (BMI), who were undergoing laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy were randomly allocated to standard gauze or negative pressure wound therapy. Patients with BMIs of 40 or greater and benign disease also were eligible. Randomization, stratified by BMI, occurred after skin closure. The primary outcome was wound complication within 30 (±5) days of surgery. A sample size of 343 per group (N=686) was planned.

Results

From March 1, 2016, to August 20, 2019, we identified 663 potential patients; 289 were randomized to negative pressure wound therapy (254 evaluable participants) and 294 to standard gauze (251 evaluable participants), for a total of 505 evaluable patients. The median age of the entire cohort was 61 years (range 20-87). Four hundred ninety-five patients (98%) underwent laparotomy for malignancy. The trial was eventually stopped for futility after an interim analysis of 444 patients. The rate of wound complications was 17.3% in the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) group and 16.3% in the gauze group, absolute risk difference 1% (90% CI -4.5 to 6.5%; P=.77). Adjusted odds ratio controlling for estimated blood loss and diabetes was 0.99 (90% CI 0.62-1.60). Skin blistering occurred in 33 patients (13%) in the NPWT group and in three patients (1.2%) in the gauze group (P<.001).

Conclusion

Negative pressure wound therapy after laparotomy for gynecologic surgery did not lower the wound complication rate but did increase skin blistering.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02682316.

Funding source

The protocol was supported in part by KCI/Acelity.

SUBMITTER: Leitao MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7856105 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSurgical site infections (SSIs) are common after laparotomy wounds and are associated with a significant economic burden. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has recently been broadened to closed surgical incisions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of prophylactic NPWT with SSI rates in closed laparotomy incisions performed for general and colorectal surgery in elective and emergency settings.Data sourcesThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles from inception until December 2017. The latest search was performed on December 31, 2017. The bibliographies of retrieved studies were further screened for potential additional studies.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies were included. Unpublished reports were excluded, as were studies that examined NPWT (or standard nonpressure) dressings only without a comparator group. Studies that evaluated the use of NPWT in open abdominal incisions were also excluded. Disagreement was resolved by discussion, and if the question remained unsettled, the opinion of the senior author was sought. A total of 198 citations were identified, and 189 were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThis meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. A random-effects model was used for statistical analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was SSI, and secondary outcomes included seroma and wound dehiscence rates. These outcomes were chosen before data collection.ResultsNine unique studies (3 randomized trials and 2 prospective and 4 retrospective studies) capturing 1266 unique patients were included. Of these, 1187 patients with 1189 incisions were included in the final analysis (52.3% male among 7 studies reporting data on sex; mean [SD] age, 52 [15] years among 8 studies reporting data on age). Significant clinical and methodologic heterogeneity existed among studies. On random-effects analysis, NPWT was associated with a significantly lower rate of SSI compared with standard dressings (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.52; P < .001). However, no difference in rates of seroma (pooled OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.12-1.23; P = .11) or wound dehiscence (pooled OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.61-6.78; P = .25) was found. On sensitivity analysis, focusing solely on colorectal procedures, NPWT significantly reduced SSI rates (pooled OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.36; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceApplication of NPWT on closed laparotomy wounds in general and colorectal surgery is associated with reduced SSI rates but similar rates of seroma and wound dehiscence compared with conventional nonpressure dressings.

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.

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.