The Impact of Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy on Postoperative Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

Allen Gabriel, Steven Sigalove, Noemi Sigalove, Toni Storm-Dickerson, Jami Rice, Patrick Maxwell, Leah Griffin, Allen Gabriel, Steven Sigalove, Noemi Sigalove, Toni Storm-Dickerson, Jami Rice, Patrick Maxwell, Leah Griffin

Abstract

Background: Studies report that incision management with closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) may provide clinical benefits, including protecting surgical incisions, for postsurgical closed incisions (eg, orthopedic, sternotomy, and colorectal). This retrospective analysis compared postoperative outcomes in patients who received ciNPT versus standard of care (SOC) for incision management after breast reconstruction postmastectomy.

Methods: Patient demographics, chemotherapy exposure, surgical technique, ciNPT use, number of drains, time to drain removal, and 90-day postoperative complication rates were analyzed from records of 356 patients (ciNPT = 177, SOC = 179) with 665 closed breast incisions (ciNPT = 331, SOC = 334).

Results: Overall complication rate was 8.5% (28/331) in ciNPT group compared with 15.9% (53/334) in SOC group (P = 0.0092). Compared with the SOC group, the ciNPT group had significantly lower infection rates [7/331 (2.1%) versus 15/334 (4.5%), respectively; P = 0.0225], dehiscence rates [8/331 (2.4%) versus 18/334 (5.4%), respectively; P = 0.0178], necrosis rates [17/331 (5.1%) versus 31/334 (9.3%), respectively; P = 0.0070], and seroma rates [6/331 (1.8%) versus 19/334 (5.7%), respectively; P = 0.0106]. The ciNPT group required significantly fewer returns to operating room compared with the SOC group [8/331 (2.4%) versus 18/334 (5.4%), respectively; P = 0.0496]. Time to complete drain removal per breast for ciNPT versus SOC groups was 9.9 versus 13.1 days (P < 0.0001), respectively.

Conclusions: Patients who received ciNPT over closed incisions following postmastectomy breast reconstruction experienced a shorter time to drain removal and significantly lower rates of infection, dehiscence, necrosis, and seromas, compared with the SOC group. Randomized controlled studies are needed to corroborate the findings in our study.

References

    1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic surgery statistics report 2016. 2017. Arlington Heights, Ill.: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 11-16-2017. Ref Type: Report.
    1. Ooi ASh, Song DH. Reducing infection risk in implant-based breast-reconstruction surgery: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2016;8:161.
    1. Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: Part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:320e.
    1. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:15.
    1. Phillips BT, Bishawi M, Dagum AB, et al. A systematic review of antibiotic use and infection in breast reconstruction: what is the evidence? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:1.
    1. Washer LL, Gutowski K. Breast implant infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2012;26:111.
    1. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, et al. Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2265.
    1. Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, et al. Complications after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer: a claims-based analysis. Ann Surg. 2016. Feb;263(2):219–27.
    1. Cohen JB, Carroll C, Tenenbaum MM, et al. Breast implant-associated infections: the role of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the local microbiome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:921.
    1. Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:28.
    1. Beecher SM, O’Leary DP, McLaughlin R, et al. Influence of complications following immediate breast reconstruction on breast cancer recurrence rates. Br J Surg. 2016;103:391.
    1. Chen CF, Lin SF, Hung CF, et al. Risk of infection is associated more with drain duration than daily drainage volume in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction: A cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5605.
    1. Hanna KR, Tilt A, Holland M, et al. Reducing infectious complications in implant based breast reconstruction: impact of early expansion and prolonged drain use. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:S312.
    1. Baker E, Piper J. Drainless mastectomy: is it safe and effective? Surgeon. 2017;15:267.
    1. Jordan SW, Khavanin N, Kim JY. Seroma in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1104.
    1. Redfern RE, Cameron-Ruetz C, O’Drobinak SK, et al. Closed incision negative pressure therapy effects on postoperative infection and surgical site complication after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:3333.
    1. Grauhan O, Navasardyan A, Hofmann M, et al. Prevention of poststernotomy wound infections in obese patients by negative pressure wound therapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:1387.
    1. Lee K, Murphy PB, Ingves MV, et al. Randomized clinical trial of negative pressure wound therapy for high-risk groin wounds in lower extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1814.
    1. Pleger SP, Nink N, Elzien M, et al. Reduction of groin wound complications in vascular surgery patients using closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT): a prospective, randomised, single-institution study. Int Wound J. 2018;15:75.
    1. Bonds AM, Novick TK, Dietert JB, et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy significantly reduces surgical site infection in open colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:1403.
    1. Soares KC, Baltodano PA, Hicks CW, et al. Novel wound management system reduction of surgical site morbidity after ventral hernia repairs: a critical analysis. Am J Surg. 2015;209:324.
    1. Swift SH, Zimmerman MB, Hardy-Fairbanks AJ. Effect of single-use negative pressure wound therapy on postcesarean infections and wound complications for high-risk patients. J Reprod Med. 2015;60:211.
    1. Gunatilake RP, Swamy GK, Brancazio LR, et al. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. AJP Rep. 2017;7:e151.
    1. Zaidi A, El-Masry S. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in high-risk general surgery patients following laparotomy: a retrospective study. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:283.
    1. Willy C, Agarwal A, Andersen CA, et al. Closed incision negative pressure therapy: international multidisciplinary consensus recommendations. Int Wound J. 2017;14:385.
    1. Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:250.
    1. Gabriel A, Sigalove SR, Maxwell GP. Initial experience using closed incision negative pressure therapy after immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e819.
    1. Kim DY, Park SJ, Bang SI, et al. Does the use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy prevent mastectomy flap necrosis in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:558.
    1. Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Candilio G, et al. Preventive NPWT over closed incisions in general surgery: does age matter? Int J Surg. 2014;12:S64.
    1. Wilkes RP, Kilpadi DV, Zhao Y, et al. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov. 2012;19:67.
    1. Gfrerer L, Mattos D, Mastroianni M, et al. Assessment of patient factors, surgeons, and surgeon teams in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:245e.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere