Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Closed Laparotomy Incisions in General and Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally, Kevin McKevitt, Ian Stephens, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Joseph Deasy, John Patrick Burke, Deborah McNamara, Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally, Kevin McKevitt, Ian Stephens, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Joseph Deasy, John Patrick Burke, Deborah McNamara
Abstract
Importance: Surgical 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.
Objective: To 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 sources: The 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 selection: Randomized 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 Unpublished reports were excluded, as were studies that examined NPWT (or standard nonpressure) dressings only without a comparator group.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 synthesis: This 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 measures: The primary outcome measure was SSI, and secondary outcomes included seroma and wound dehiscence rates. These outcomes were chosen before data collection.
Results: Nine 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 relevance: Application 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.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Figures
Source: PubMed