Incisional negative pressure wound therapy to reduce perineal wound infection after abdominoperineal resection.

We explored the effects of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection. We retrospectively evaluated 146 patients who underwent abdominal perineal resection from December 2004 to December 2019 and compared conventional gauze dressing (controls) with incisional negative pressure wound therapy. We compared patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and perineal infection rates between groups, and patients' characteristics, surgical factors, and negative pressure therapy use between perineal infection vs non-infection groups, as well as the risk factors for perineal infections. In the negative pressure therapy group, compared with controls, the number of men, smoking prevalence, blood transfusion, drainage via the perineal wound, and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lower (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively), and operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.05). Infections were significantly less common in the negative pressure group (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, the infection-positive group had significantly higher laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.01) and negative pressure wound therapy-free rates (p < 0.01), and significantly more intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis using these three factors and preoperative radiotherapy showed that incisional negative pressure wound therapy-free status was a risk factor for infection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was beneficial in managing perineal wound infections after abdominoperineal resection.

Noninvasive assessment of bowel blood perfusion using intraoperative laser speckle flowgraphy.

PURPOSE: Laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG) is a noninvasive method for quantitative evaluation of blood flow using the mean blur rate (MBR) as the blood flow index. We investigated whether LSFG can intraoperatively detect the demarcation line after vessel dissection and reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL). METHODS: This study included 36 patients who underwent left-sided colorectal surgery. First, we compared the demarcation line (determined by LSFG) with the transection line (TL) at which the marginal vessels were divided. We then measured the MBR on both sides of the TL to determine where the MBR changed significantly. We investigated the presence or absence of significant differences between the MBR on the proximal side and that on the distal side of the TL. Finally, we retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and AL rates in the LSFG group (n = 36) and control group (n = 87). RESULTS: In total, 58.3% (21/36) of the demarcation lines determined by LSFG matched the TL. The median distance between the demarcation line determined by LSFG and the TL was 0.0 mm (0.0-12.1 mm). The MBR sharply decreased at the TL in 80.6% (29/36) of cases. The median MBR was significantly lower on the distal than proximal side. The AL rate was not significantly lower in the LSFG group than in the control group. CONCLUSION: LSFG accurately detected the demarcation line during surgery. However, LSFG did not reduce the incidence of AL.