BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the efficacy of negative-pressure therapy (NPT) in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in high-risk surgical oncology patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 191 operations for colorectal, pancreatic, or peritoneal surface malignancies was performed. Incisional NPT was used in patients with multiple SSI risk factors. Rates of SSIs were compared with patients treated with a standard sterile dressing (SSD). RESULTS: NPT was used in 104 patients, whereas SSDs were used in 87 patients. Despite being at an increased risk of SSI, patients treated with NPT developed fewer superficial incisional SSIs compared with SSD patients (6.7% vs 19.5%, P = .015). In a subgroup analysis of clean-contaminated cases, NPT was associated with fewer superficial incisional SSIs (6.0% vs 27.4%, P = .001), fewer total SSIs (16.0% vs 35.5%, P = .011), and fewer wound openings for any reason (16.0% vs 35.5%, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that NPT decreases SSIs in high-risk surgical oncology patients.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the efficacy of negative-pressure therapy (NPT) in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in high-risk surgical oncology patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 191 operations for colorectal, pancreatic, or peritoneal surface malignancies was performed. Incisional NPT was used in patients with multiple SSI risk factors. Rates of SSIs were compared with patients treated with a standard sterile dressing (SSD). RESULTS: NPT was used in 104 patients, whereas SSDs were used in 87 patients. Despite being at an increased risk of SSI, patients treated with NPT developed fewer superficial incisional SSIs compared with SSDpatients (6.7% vs 19.5%, P = .015). In a subgroup analysis of clean-contaminated cases, NPT was associated with fewer superficial incisional SSIs (6.0% vs 27.4%, P = .001), fewer total SSIs (16.0% vs 35.5%, P = .011), and fewer wound openings for any reason (16.0% vs 35.5%, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that NPT decreases SSIs in high-risk surgical oncology patients.
Authors: Perry Shen; Aaron U Blackham; Stacey Lewis; Clancy J Clark; Russell Howerton; Harveshp D Mogal; Rebecca M Dodson; Gregory B Russell; Edward A Levine Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Stephen S Cai; Arvind U Gowda; Richard H Alexander; Ronald P Silverman; Nelson H Goldberg; Yvonne M Rasko Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Shaheel Mohammad Sahebally; Kevin McKevitt; Ian Stephens; Fidelma Fitzpatrick; Joseph Deasy; John Patrick Burke; Deborah McNamara Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Michael Engelhardt; Norah A Rashad; Christian Willy; Christian Müller; Christian Bauer; Sebastian Debus; Tino Beck Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Lauren S Tufts; Emma D Jarnagin; Jessica R Flynn; Mithat Gonen; Jose G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Garrett M Nash; Joshua J Smith; Iris H Wei; Emmanouil Pappou; Michael I D'Angelica; Peter J Allen; T Peter Kingham; Vinod P Balachandran; Jeffrey A Drebin; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; William R Jarnagin; Martin R Weiser Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Brooke A Schlappe; Jennifer J Mueller; Oliver Zivanovic; Ginger J Gardner; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 5.482