Why the study?
Dressings for closed incision negative pressure therapy have evolved into linear and area configurations, creating a need to evaluate new studies and provide guidance on dressing selection.
This international consensus provides 12 statements to guide clinicians in the selection and practical application of linear and area closed incision negative pressure therapy dressings.
Supports ciNPT dressing selection by risk factors; leaves open need for trials to validate recommendations.
Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) with foam dressings has received broad recognition for its ability to support incision healing for a variety of surgical procedures. Over time, these dressings have evolved to include linear and 'area' shapes to better conform to different incision types and surface geometries. To address new studies on these configurations and provide guidance for dressing selection, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened. The panel reviewed recent publications on ciNPT with reticulated open cell foam (ROCF) dressings, shared their cases and experiences and engaged in roundtable discussions on benefits, drawbacks and technical challenges. Topics were ranked by importance and refined into potential consensus statements. These were shared for anonymous feedback, requiring 80% agreement for consensus. This manuscript establishes 12 consensus statements regarding risk factors supporting the use of ciNPT, conditions supporting preference of linear or area ciNPT dressings and tips for practical application of ciNPT with ROCF dressings. While this consensus panel expands on previous publications to aid clinicians' decision-making, further research is needed to refine recommendations and identify the strengths and limitations of ciNPT. Continued multidisciplinary collaboration will ensure ciNPT remains vital for improving surgical outcomes and patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: