Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct;18(7):810-819.
doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.156. Epub 2017 Sep 8.

Meta-Analysis of Comparative Trials Evaluating a Prophylactic Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System for the Prevention of Surgical Site Complications

Affiliations
Review

Meta-Analysis of Comparative Trials Evaluating a Prophylactic Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System for the Prevention of Surgical Site Complications

Vicki Strugala et al. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Background: We report the first meta-analysis on the impact of prophylactic use of a specific design of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device on surgical site complications.

Methods: Articles were identified in which the specific single-use NPWT device (PICO, Smith & Nephew) was compared with standard care for surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, or length of stay (LOS). Risk ratio (RR) ±95% confidence interval (CI) (SSI; dehiscence) or mean difference in LOS ±95% CI was calculated using RevMan v5.3.

Results: There were 1863 patients (2202 incisions) represented by 16 articles. Among 10 randomized studies, there was a significant reduction in SSI rate of 51% from 9.7% to 4.8% with NPWT intervention (RR 0.49 [95% CI 0.34-0.69] p < 0.0001). There were six observational studies assessing reduction in SSI rate of 67% from 22.5% to 7.4% with NPWT (RR 0. 32 [95% CI 0.18-0.55] p < 0.0001). Combining all 16 studies, there was a significant reduction in SSI of 58% from 12.5% to 5.2% with NPWT (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.32-0.57] p < 0.0001). Similar effects were seen irrespective of the kind of surgery (orthopedic, abdominal, colorectal, or cesarean section), although the numbers needed to treat (NNT) were lower in operations with higher frequencies of complications. There was a significant reduction in dehiscence from 17.4% to 12.8% with NPWT (RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.54-0.92] p < 0.01). The mean reduction in hospital LOS by NPWT was also significant (-0.47 days [95% CI -0.71 to -0.23] p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The significant reduction in SSI, wound dehiscence, and LOS on the basis of pooled data from 16 studies shows a benefit of the PICO single-use NPWT system compared with standard care in closed surgical incisions.

Keywords: postoperative complication; prophylaxis; surgical site infection; wound infection; wound management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

VS and RM are employees of Smith & Nephew plc.

Figures

<b>FIG. 1.</b>
FIG. 1.
The PICO single use negative pressure wound therapy in position on a patient with a cesarean section closed surgical incision. PICO (Smith & Nephew) is a small, lightweight, ultra-portable, negative pressure system that consists of a dressing, supplied with a small negative pressure pump powered by two AA batteries. The pump is disposable after seven days. The PICO system produces negative pressure at −80 mm Hg continuously, and therapy can be started or paused using the single orange button [53]. Used with permission from Bullogh and Burns [23].
<b>FIG. 2.</b>
FIG. 2.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart showing selection of articles for the meta-analysis.
<b>FIG. 3.</b>
FIG. 3.
Forest plot of the comparison of PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care on surgical site infection outcome by randomized controlled trial (RCT), observational, and overall. Random effects model risk ratio 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.32–0.62) overall.
<b>FIG. 4.</b>
FIG. 4.
Forest plot of the comparison of PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care on dehiscence outcome. Random effects model RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.55–0.93).
<b>FIG. 5.</b>
FIG. 5.
Forest plot of the comparison of PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care on length of stay with subgroup analysis. Random effects model for all surgical procedures −2.15 (95% CI −3.46 to −0.84).
<b>FIG. 6.</b>
FIG. 6.
Funnel plot of comparison PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care on surgical site infection outcomes. SE = standard error; RR = risk ratio; RCT = randomized controlled trial.

References

    1. Sugrue M, Ciprandi G, Djohan R, et al. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Consensus Document. Closed surgical incision management: Understanding the role of NPWT. Wounds Int [Internet]. 2016. www.woundsinternational.com/wuwhs/view/consensus-document-closed-surgica... (Last accessed July29, 2017)
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of SSI, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–278 - PubMed
    1. Tanner J, Padley W, Assadian O, et al. Do surgical care bundles reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? A systematic review and cohort meta-analysis of 8,515 patients. Surgery 2015;158:66–77 - PubMed
    1. Leaper DJ, Tanner J, Kiernan M, et al. Surgical site infection: Poor compliance with guidelines and care bundles. Int Wound J 2015;12:357–362 - PMC - PubMed
    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 - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources