Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Prevention of Wound Healing Complications Following Reduction Mammaplasty

Robert D Galiano, Donald Hudson, Joseph Shin, René van der Hulst, Volkan Tanaydin, Risal Djohan, Franck Duteille, John Cockwill, Sarah Megginson, Elizabeth Huddleston, Robert D Galiano, Donald Hudson, Joseph Shin, René van der Hulst, Volkan Tanaydin, Risal Djohan, Franck Duteille, John Cockwill, Sarah Megginson, Elizabeth Huddleston

Abstract

Background: It has been proposed that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) applied prophylactically to a closed incision may decrease the incidence of wound complications. Patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty are at risk of wound complications such as delayed healing, infection, and dehiscence, and the bilateral nature of the surgery allows for a within-patient randomized study to evaluate incisional NPWT's effect in reducing healing complications.

Methods: In this multicenter trial, 200 patients undergoing bilateral reduction mammaplasty were treated with PICO Single-Use NPWT System or standard wound-care dressings randomized to right or left breast for up to 14 days to enable within-patient comparison. Follow-up assessments were conducted to evaluate the difference in incision healing complications up to 21 days postsurgery. Healing complications (for the primary endpoint) were defined as delayed healing (incision not 100% closed by 7 days) and occurrence of dehiscence or infection within 21 days. Individual healing complications were assessed separately as secondary endpoints.

Results: Significantly fewer healing complications (primary endpoint) were noted in NPWT-treated breasts [113 (56.8%)] versus standard care [123 (61.8%)]. The difference of 10 (5.0%) patients with fewer healing complications using NPWT was statistically significant (P = 0.004). NPWT also resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dehiscence (secondary endpoint) compared with standard care [32 patients (16.2%) versus 52 patients (26.4%)] by day 21, a relative reduction of 38% (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This is the first major prospective, within-patient, randomized, controlled, multicenter study to provide evidence for an incisional NPWT strategy to reduce healing complications.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
A, The PICO NPWT pump is lightweight (80 g) and measures 64 mm × 68 mm × 21 mm. It delivers −80 mm Hg and lasts for 7 days. There is no exudate canister and it is battery-powered. Exudate evaporates from the upper surface of the multilayer NPWT dressing, which transmits negative pressure across the surface of the wound. B, A patient from the trial randomized to receive PICO to the right breast following the reduction procedure. The dressing covers the entire lower incision, the T-junction, and much of the vertical incision except the nipple.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Patient disposition. Safety analysis set, n = 200 patients; full analysis set, n = 199 patients. One hundred seventy-eight patients (89.0%) completed the 90-day study; 22 patients (11%) were withdrawn: reasons were given as adverse event, n = 1 (0.5%); patient’s own request, n = 4 (2%); lost to follow-up, n = 14 (7%); and other, n = 3 (1.5%).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Frequency of complications during the postsurgical period in 199 patients treated with NPWT and SC. For the sensitivity analysis, the definition of delayed healing was changed from 7 to 10 days after surgery, with the aim that all patients should have returned for at least 1 visit at this point and we would therefore have complete information regarding closure. Using this cutoff, the results remained statistically significant [n = 79, 39.7% versus 89, 44.7% for NPWT and SC, respectively; treatment difference 5% (95% CI, 0.4–10.1); P = 0.033].
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Proportion of patients reporting a dehiscence at each individual assessment.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Effect of body mass index on wound dehiscence.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Example of a patient with deep dehiscence on breast treated with SC and good healing on breast treated with NPWT.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.
Effect of tissue resection weight on dehiscence.

References

    1. The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank: Statistics. Aesthetic Surg J. 2016;36:1–29..
    1. Davis GM, Ringler SL, Short K, et al. Reduction mammaplasty: long-term efficacy, morbidity, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1106–1110..
    1. Makki AS, Ghanem AA. Long-term results and patient satisfaction with reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 1998;41:370–377..
    1. Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, et al. A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery: health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:13–26..
    1. Setälä L, Papp A, Joukainen S, et al. Obesity and complications in breast reduction surgery: are restrictions justified? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:195–199..
    1. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553–562..
    1. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:563–576.; discussion 577.
    1. Krug E, Berg L, Lee C, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury. 2011;42:S1–S12..
    1. Stannard JP, Volgas DA, McGwin G, 3rd, et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy after high-risk lower extremity fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:37–42..
    1. Semsarzadeh NN, Tadisina KK, Maddox J, et al. Closed incision negative-pressure therapy is associated with decreased surgical-site infections: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:592–602..
    1. Hyldig N, Birke-Sorensen H, Kruse M, et al. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg. 2016;103:477–486..
    1. De Vries FEE, Wallert ED, Solomkin JS, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis including GRADE qualification of the risk of surgical site infections after prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy compared with conventional dressings in clean and contaminated surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4673.
    1. Condé-Green A, Chung TL, Holton LH, 3rd, et al. Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings following abdominal wall reconstruction: a comparative study. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:394–397..
    1. Karlakki SL, Hamad AK, Whittall C, et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5:328–337..
    1. Witt-Majchrzak A, Żelazny P, Snarska J. Preliminary outcome of treatment of postoperative primarily closed sternotomy wounds treated using negative pressure wound therapy. Pol Przegl Chir. 2015;86:456–465..
    1. Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A, et al. Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no-canister system. Int Wound J. 2015;12:195–201..
    1. Malmsjö M, Huddleston E, Martin R. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless negative pressure wound therapy system. Eplasty. 2014;14:e15.
    1. Shah R, Al-Ajam Y, Stott D, et al. Obesity in mammaplasty: a study of complications following breast reduction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:508–514..
    1. Lewin R, Göransson M, Elander A, et al. Risk factors for complications after breast reduction surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014;48:10–14..
    1. Henry SL, Crawford JL, Puckett CL. Risk factors and complications in reduction mammaplasty: novel associations and preoperative assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1040–1046..
    1. Cunningham BL, Gear AJL, Kerrigan CL, et al. Analysis of breast reduction complications derived from the BRAVO study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:1597–1604..
    1. Loveluck J, Copeland T, Hill J, et al. Biomechanical modeling of the forces applied to closed incisions during single-use negative pressure wound therapy. Eplasty. 2016;16:e20.
    1. Wilkes RP, Kilpad DV, Zhao Y, et al. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov. 2012;19:67–75..
    1. Glaser DA, Farnsworth CL, Varley ES, et al. Negative pressure therapy for closed spine incisions: a pilot study. Wounds. 2012;24:308–316..
    1. Meeker J, Weinhold P, Dahners L. Negative pressure therapy on primarily closed wounds improves wound healing parameters at 3 days in a porcine model. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:756–761..

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera