Key result
Negative pressure wound therapy decreased surgical site infections versus standard dressing in pooled analysis (0.57; 95% CI -0.4 to 0.8; P<0.001), but superiority was not confirmed in RCTs alone.
Why the study?
Does negative pressure wound therapy reduce surgical site infections compared to standard dressing in patients undergoing general abdominal surgery?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,193)
Does negative pressure wound therapy reduce surgical site infections compared to standard dressing in patients undergoing general abdominal surgery?
Effect estimate: 0.57 (95% CI -0.4 to 0.8)
p-value: p=<0.001
Routine use of negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection prophylaxis after laparotomy in general abdominal surgery cannot be recommended based on current evidence due to high heterogeneity and lack of benefit in RCTs.
Does not support routine use of negative pressure wound therapy; leaves open confirmation of benefit in dedicated RCTs.
Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent an economic burden to healthcare systems. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for SSI prophylaxis remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for relevant studies. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the effectiveness of NPWT for prophylaxis of SSI rates in general abdominal surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of seroma and wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, and re-admission rates. The statistical analysis was performed with random effect models. Results: A total of 3,193 patients from 20 articles (six randomized controlled trials [RCT], three prospective, eight retrospective, and three ambispective studies) were analyzed. Negative pressure wound therapy was associated with decreased rate of SSIs compared with standard dressing in a pooled analysis of non-randomized studies and RCTs (0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.4 to 0.8; p < 0.001). This result, however, needs to be challenged because of a significant statistical heterogeneity of the included studies (I2 = 71%; p < 0.01). A separate analysis of the six RCTs failed to confirm the superiority of NPWT (0.64; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.04; p = 0.07), also disclosing significant heterogeneity. The analysis of secondary outcomes was only possible in combination of randomized and non-randomized studies because of incomplete datasets in RCTs. Re-admission rates were lower after NPWT and no difference was observed for the incidence of seroma, wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions: Based on available evidence, the routine use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis after laparotomy in general abdominal surgery cannot be generally recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almansa-Saura et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Surgical site infections in general abdominal surgery (n=3,193). Negative pressure wound therapy vs. Standard dressing was evaluated on Surgical site infection (SSI) rates (0.57, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.8, p=<0.001). Negative pressure wound therapy decreased surgical site infections versus standard dressing in pooled analysis (0.57; 95% CI -0.4 to 0.8; P<0.001), but superiority was not confirmed in RCTs alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: