Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative wound complications are common following surgical procedures. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is well recognized for the management of open wounds and has been applied recently to closed surgical incisions. The evidence base to support this intervention is limited. The aim of this study was to assess whether NPWT reduces postoperative wound complications when applied to closed surgical incisions. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of NPWT compared with standard postoperative dressings on closed surgical incisions. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 1311 incisions in 1089 patients. NPWT was associated with a significant reduction in wound infection (relative risk (RR) 0·54, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·89) and seroma formation (RR 0·48, 0·27 to 0·84) compared with standard care. The reduction in wound dehiscence was not significant. The numbers needed to treat were three (seroma), 17 (dehiscence) and 25 (infection). Methodological heterogeneity across studies led to downgrading of the quality of evidence to moderate for infection and seroma, and low for dehiscence. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard postoperative dressings, NPWT significantly reduced the rate of wound infection and seroma when applied to closed surgical wounds. Heterogeneity between the included studies means that no general recommendations can be made yet.

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in chronic wounds: steps towards an international consensus.

AIM: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) has become widely adopted over the last 15 years and over 1000 peer-reviewed publications are available describing its use. Despite this, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. In order to respond to this gap a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In this communication the results of the study of evidence in chronic wounds including pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), venous leg ulcers (VLU), and ischaemic lower limb wounds are reported. METHODS: Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence, drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel followed by a formal consultative consensus development program in which 422 independent healthcare professionals were able to agree or disagree with the recommendations. The criteria for agreement were set at 80% agreement. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) classification system. RESULTS: The primary treatment goal of NPWT in most chronic wounds is to achieve wound closure (either by secondary intention or preparing the wound for surgical closure). Secondary goals commonly include: to reduce wound dimensions, and to improve the quality of the wound bed. Thirteen evidence based recommendations were developed in total to address these treatment goals; 4 for pressure ulcers, 4 for DFU, 3 for ischaemic lower limb wounds and 2 for VLU. CONCLUSION: The present evidence base is strongest for the use of NPWT in non-ischaemic DFU and weakest in VLU. The development of evidence-based recommendations for NPWT with direct validation from a large group of practicing clinicians offers a broader basis for consensus than work by an expert panel alone.

Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer)--steps towards an international consensus.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is becoming a commonplace treatment in many clinical settings. New devices and dressings are being introduced. Despite widespread adoption, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of NPWT use. To respond to these gaps, a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In a previous communication, we have reviewed the evidence base for the use of NPWT within trauma and reconstructive surgery. In this communication, we present results of the assessment of evidence relating to the different NPWT treatment variables: different wound fillers (principally foam and gauze); when to use a wound contact layer; different pressure settings; and the impact of NPWT on bacterial bioburden. Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence and drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) classification system. In general, there is relatively weak evidence on which to base recommendations for any one NPWT treatment variable over another. Overall, 14 recommendations were developed: five for the choice of wound filler and wound contact layer, four for choice of pressure setting and five for use of NPWT in infected wounds. With respect to bioburden, evidence suggests that reduction of bacteria in wounds is not a major mode of action of NPWT.

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has become widely adopted over the last 15 years and over 1000 peer reviewed publications are available describing its use. Despite this, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. In order to respond to this gap a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In this paper the results of the study of evidence in traumatic wounds (including soft tissue defects, open fractures and burns) and reconstructive procedures (including flaps and grafts) are reported. Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence, drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel, followed by a formal consultative consensus development program in which 422 independent healthcare professionals were able to agree or disagree with the recommendations. The criteria for agreement were set at 80% approval. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) classification system. Twelve recommendations were developed in total; 4 for soft tissue trauma and open fracture injuries, 1 for burn injuries, 3 for flaps and 4 for skin grafts. The present evidence base is strongest for the use of NPWT on skin grafts and weakest as a primary treatment for burns. In the consultative process, 11/12 of the proposed recommendations reached the 80% agreement threshold. The development of evidence-based recommendations for NPWT with direct validation from a large group of practicing clinicians offers a broader basis for consensus than work by an expert panel alone.