Lulu Yu1, Ryan J Kronen2, Laura E Simon3, Carolyn R T Stoll4, Graham A Colditz5, Methodius G Tuuli6. 1. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: lulu.yu@wustl.edu. 2. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 3. Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 5. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Institute for Public Health, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.
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.
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 obesewomen 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.
Authors: Nelson C Echebiri; M Maya McDoom; Meaghan M Aalto; Jessie Fauntleroy; Nagammai Nagappan; Vanessa M Barnabei Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Edward W Swanson; Hsu-Tang Cheng; Srinivas M Susarla; Denver M Lough; Anand R Kumar Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 0.947
Authors: Haitham W Tuffaha; Brigid M Gillespie; Wendy Chaboyer; Louisa G Gordon; Paul A Scuffham Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ravindu P Gunatilake; Geeta K Swamy; Leo R Brancazio; Michael P Smrtka; Jennifer L Thompson; Jennifer B Gilner; Beverly A Gray; Robert Phillips Heine Journal: AJP Rep Date: 2017-07-14
Authors: N Hyldig; H Birke-Sorensen; M Kruse; C Vinter; J S Joergensen; J A Sorensen; O Mogensen; R F Lamont; C Bille Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Gill Norman; En Lin Goh; Jo C Dumville; Chunhu Shi; Zhenmi Liu; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Adam Reid Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: N Hyldig; C A Vinter; M Kruse; O Mogensen; C Bille; J A Sorensen; R F Lamont; C Wu; L N Heidemann; M H Ibsen; J B Laursen; P G Ovesen; C Rorbye; M Tanvig; J S Joergensen Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Methodius G Tuuli; Jingxia Liu; Alan T N Tita; Sherri Longo; Amanda Trudell; Ebony B Carter; Anthony Shanks; Candice Woolfolk; Aaron B Caughey; David K Warren; Anthony O Odibo; Graham Colditz; George A Macones; Lorie Harper Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gill Norman; En Lin Goh; Jo C Dumville; Chunhu Shi; Zhenmi Liu; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Adam Reid Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-15
Authors: Ronald P Silverman; John Apostolides; Abhishek Chatterjee; Anthony N Dardano; Regina M Fearmonti; Allen Gabriel; Robert T Grant; Owen N Johnson; Suresh Koneru; Anna A Kuang; Andrea A Moreira; Steven R Sigalove Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 3.315