BACKGROUND: It is suggested that the vacuum technique is a promising new method for the therapy of mediastinitis, but reliable investigations are currently almost completely lacking. We therefore compared clinical outcome of patients whose sternal infection was managed with the vacuum-assisted closure system or with the conventional procedure of open packing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in 68 cases of sternal wound infection that were identified at our Heart Center between September 1998 and September 2003. Thirty-five patients could be allocated to the vacuum group and 33 patients to the conventional group. We compared the time interval from sternal infection until freedom of microbiological cultures, in-hospital stay, the status at discharge (rewired or open sternum), the time interval until wound healing was achieved, and survival rates. Moreover, we compared serum levels of C-reactive protein and blood leukocyte counts on admission, at diagnosis of sternal infection, and at different points of time until discharge. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and blood factors did not differ between the two study groups at diagnosis of sternal infection. Moreover, the number of prescribed antibiotics was similar, and the C-reactive protein level and blood leukocyte counts at discharge were comparable in both groups. However, freedom from mediastinal microbiological cultures was achieved earlier (p < 0.01), C-reactive protein levels declined more rapidly (p < 0.025), in-hospital stay was shorter (p < 0.01), rewiring was earlier (p < 0.01), and survival tended to be higher (p < 0.15) in the vacuum group compared to the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis could demonstrate that the vacuum technique improves the medical outcome of patients with mediastinitis compared with the conventional technique of open packing.
BACKGROUND: It is suggested that the vacuum technique is a promising new method for the therapy of mediastinitis, but reliable investigations are currently almost completely lacking. We therefore compared clinical outcome of patients whose sternal infection was managed with the vacuum-assisted closure system or with the conventional procedure of open packing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in 68 cases of sternal wound infection that were identified at our Heart Center between September 1998 and September 2003. Thirty-five patients could be allocated to the vacuum group and 33 patients to the conventional group. We compared the time interval from sternal infection until freedom of microbiological cultures, in-hospital stay, the status at discharge (rewired or open sternum), the time interval until wound healing was achieved, and survival rates. Moreover, we compared serum levels of C-reactive protein and blood leukocyte counts on admission, at diagnosis of sternal infection, and at different points of time until discharge. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and blood factors did not differ between the two study groups at diagnosis of sternal infection. Moreover, the number of prescribed antibiotics was similar, and the C-reactive protein level and blood leukocyte counts at discharge were comparable in both groups. However, freedom from mediastinal microbiological cultures was achieved earlier (p < 0.01), C-reactive protein levels declined more rapidly (p < 0.025), in-hospital stay was shorter (p < 0.01), rewiring was earlier (p < 0.01), and survival tended to be higher (p < 0.15) in the vacuum group compared to the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis could demonstrate that the vacuum technique improves the medical outcome of patients with mediastinitis compared with the conventional technique of open packing.
Authors: Estas Bovill; Paul E Banwell; Luc Teot; Elof Eriksson; Colin Song; Jim Mahoney; Ronny Gustafsson; Raymund Horch; Anand Deva; Ian Whitworth Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Allen Gabriel; Jaimie Shores; Brent Bernstein; Jean de Leon; Ravi Kamepalli; Tom Wolvos; Mona M Baharestani; Subhas Gupta Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.315