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
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Feb;218(2):200-210.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.017. Epub 2017 Sep 23.

Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean is associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lulu Yu  1 , Ryan J Kronen  2 , Laura E Simon  3 , Carolyn R T Stoll  4 , Graham A Colditz  5 , Methodius G Tuuli  6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean is associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lulu Yu et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections and other wound complications in women after cesarean delivery.

Data sources: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy with standard wound dressing for cesarean delivery.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The primary outcome was surgical site infection after cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were composite wound complications, wound dehiscence, wound seroma, endometritis, and hospital readmission. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin's I2. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models.

Results: Six randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies in high-risk mostly obese women met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Six were full-text articles, 2 published abstracts, and 1 report of trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies were also heterogeneous in the patients included and type of negative-pressure wound therapy device. The risk of surgical site infection was significantly lower with the use of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard wound dressing (7 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.66; adjusted risk ratio, -6.0%, 95% confidence interval, -10.0% to -3.0%; number needed to treat, 17, 95% confidence interval, 10-34). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 9.9%) or publication bias (Egger P = .532). Of the secondary outcomes, only composite wound complications were significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing (9 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94).

Conclusion: Studies on the effectiveness of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy at cesarean delivery are heterogeneous but suggest a reduction in surgical site infection and overall wound complications. Larger definitive trials are needed to clarify the clinical utility of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery.

Keywords: antibiotics; cesarean delivery; dehiscence; endometritis; hospital readmission; meta-analysis; prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy; seroma; surgical site infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the effect of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection after cesarean delivery.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot of the effect of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection after cesarean delivery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2015. Natl Cent Heal Stat Data Br. 2016;2015(258):1–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27648876. - PubMed
    1. Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2013. Natl Vital Stat Reports. 2014;63(6):1–16. - PubMed
    1. Creanga AA, Bateman BT, Butwick AJ, et al. Morbidity associated with cesarean delivery in the United States: Is placenta accreta an increasingly important contributor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(3):384.e1–384e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Newlin C, Kuehl TJ, Pickrel A, Cawyer CR, Jones RO. Cesarean section incision complications and associated risk factors: A quality assurance project. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;(November):789–794.
    1. Conner S, Verticchio J, Tuuli M, Odibo A, Macones G, Cahill A. Maternal obesity and risk of postcesarean wound complications. Am J Perinatol. 2013;31(4):299–304. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1348402. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types